Allowed

Tmt. Senthamari, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC6 Apr 2016CRL OP/6987/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Original Petition, the petitioner sought a direction to prevent police harassment using the guise of enquiry. The court allowed the petition, directing police not to harass but to conduct lawful investigation per D.K.Basu guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to harass petitioner under guise of enquiry but to investigate in accordance with law; directed petitioner to appear on receipt of summons.

Tmt. Senthamari, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.04.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6987 of 2016

¶6

Tmt.Senthamarai

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.
2.State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Town Police Station,
Coonoor, The Nilgiris. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer :

¶10

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy For Respondents: Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶12

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to not to harass the petitioner.

¶13

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶14

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that one Mallika has given a complaint against the petitioner earlier in Upper Coonoor Police Station and after enquiry, it was closed. Subsequently, the said Mallika has given another complaint to the respondent and on the basis of the complaint given by the said Mallika, the respondent is frequently calling the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and harassing him. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief.

¶15

4.At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

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

¶17

would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by one Mallika, enquiry is going on and there is no harassment. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

¶18

5.Considering the rival submissions made on either side, since on the basis of the complaint given by one Mallika, enquiry is going on, the respondent is directed not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, but let the police investigate into the matter in accordance with law and the mandates as found set out in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610. If really, the police want to interrogate, it is open for the respondent police to issue summons to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police for enquiry, on receipt of summons.

¶19

6.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition
is disposed of.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pri
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Town Police Station,
Coonoor, The Nilgiris.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.6987 of 2016
kgk co
kra 25.04.2016

¶20

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

Tmt. Senthamari, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt. Senthamari, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Swathy Vs State Rep by

A.Thirumugam Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Thangamani Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Vijayaraj, Vs The Superintendent of Police

Kulasekaran Vs State Rep by

A.Krishnamoorthy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of