Dismissed

M/S.Myunghwa Automotive India v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC7 Mar 2016CRL OP/60/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking police protection for its factory against illegal acts by employees. The court found a case was registered and police picketing provided with no recent incidents, thus no further direction was necessary.

What did the court decide?

No further direction for police protection was granted as police picketing was already provided and no incidents occurred.

M/S.Myunghwa Automotive India Vs the Superintendent of… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.03.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.60 of 2016

¶6

M/s.Myunghwa Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office and Factory
No.112, Singadivakkam Village
Kanchipuram Taluk & District – 631 561
Rep by its Manager-HR/
Authorised Signatory
D.Shanmugasundaram .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Superintendent of Police
Kancheepuram District – 631 501.
2.The Inspector of Police
Wallajabad Police Station
Wallajabad – 631 605
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer:

¶8

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection for the safety, security and protection to the lives and property of the Petitioner's factory, management officials, staffs and other workers from the illegal acts of the delinquent workers including the named accused, their henchmen and supporters on the basis of the complaint dated 26.12.2015.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabhakaran

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection for the safety, security and protection to the lives and property of the Petitioner's factory, management officials, staffs and other workers from the illegal acts of the delinquent workers including the named accused, their henchmen and supporters on the basis of the complaint dated 26.12.2015.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner had given a complaint dated 26.12.2015, the respondents had not initiated any action and no police protection was given to ensure the smooth functioning of the company and hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief.

¶14

Resisting the same, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner on 26.12.2015, a case in Crime No.10/2016 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. He would further submit police picketing was given and it was found that the factory is running smoothly and no untoward incidents have taken place. Further, if any threat is found in future, the respondents will take necessary action and thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶15

Considered the rival submissions made by both sides.

¶16

Considering the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in pursuance of the complaint given by the petitioner dated on 26.12.2015, a case in Crime No.10/2016 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and police picketing was given and it was found that the factory is running smoothly and no untoward incidents have taken place and further, the respondents/police is ready to take immediate steps if any untoward incidents happen in future, I am of the view that no further direction is necessary.

¶17

Thus, recording the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the present Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

pgp

Sd/Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

¶24

1.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram District – 631 501.

¶25

2.The Inspector of Police Wallajabad Police Station Wallajabad – 631 605 Kancheepuram District.

¶26

3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+1 cc to Mr.R.Prabhakaran, Advocate Sr 15199
KR/18/3/16
Crl.O.P.No.60 of 2016

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Myunghwa Automotive India v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Myunghwa Automotive India v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uma Pinaghapani Vs the Inspector of Police

Suresh Babu Vs State Rep by

Kumaravel Vs State by Deputy Superintendent

Thangayammal Vs The District Collector

R. Krishnakumar Vs State Rep. by the Inspector

A.Raja Vs the Deputy Inspector General