Dismissed

V.Vanitha v. the State by

Madras HC7 Apr 2016CRL OP/7802/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to alter the FIR to include Section 66(A) of the IT Act and mandate investigation completion. The Court dismissed the petition, noting that Section 66(A) of the IT Act had been struck down by the Supreme Court, rendering the prayer ineffective. Costs were awarded to the State Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

V.Vanitha Vs the State by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.04.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7802 of 2016

¶6

V.Vanitha ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The State by Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station,
Panrutti,
Cuddalore District.
2. K.B.Kalidass ... Respondents
Prayer :
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the respondents to
alter the FIR by including Section 66(A) of the Information
Technology Act and by completing the investigation within such
time as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.G.K.Ilanthiraiyan for M/s.Sai Bharath and Ilan For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶9

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking a direction to the respondent police to alter the FIR by including Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act and by completing the investigation within such time as may be directed by this Court.

¶10

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent is harassing the petitioner through unwanted foul messages through mobile phones and also making calls and abusing, teasing and torturing the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has lodged a complaint with the respondent police. The respondent police has registered the case in Crime No.02 of 2016 only for the offence punishable under Sections 498 (A), 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present petition for the relief as stated above.

¶11

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

¶12

3.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶13

4.Considering the submissions made on both sides and on perusal of typed set of papers, it is known that case has been registered only on 11.03.2016. Hence, investigation is in the earlier stage. Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act has been struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this Court feels that this petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.

¶14

5.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed
and the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand Only) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal
Services Authority, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104.
pri
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station,
Panrutti,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
3. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Legal Services
Authority, High Court Buildings,
Chennai 104.
+ 1 cc to Mr.Sai Bharath & Ilan, Advocates SR 22470
pur(co)
prk22/4 Crl.O.P.No.7802 of 2016

¶15

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

V.Vanitha v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Vanitha v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tmt. Senthamari, Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.R.Muthiah @ a.K.Muthiah Vs T.Udaya Raj

P.Bharanidaran Vs State Rep by

R.Sarala Vs State Rep. by

Mr.J.Nagaraj Vs State by

S.Sangeetha Vs the Inspector of Police