Disposed

L.David v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC14 Jun 2016CRL OP/8810/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought protection from police harassment regarding a false complaint under the SARFAESI Act. The Court referred to a related stay order in another petition and directed the police not to harass the petitioners before disposing of the matter.

What did the court decide?

No further police harassment of the petitioners on the pretext of the complaint; Cr.O.P. disposed of with this direction.

L.David Vs the Superintendent of Police — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.8810 of 2016

¶6

1.David 2.Rengarajan 3.G.Padmanaban ...Petitioners

¶7

Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Perambalur District. 2.The Inspector of Police Mangalamedu Police Station, Perambalur District. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to harass the petitioners on the pretext of the false complaint preferred against them, who have done their official duty in accordance with SARFAESI Act and not to interfere in connection with the issue involved in O.A.No.439 of 2015, pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal No.II, Chennai, between the complainant and the bank i.e., the petitioners.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to harass the petitioners on the pretext of the false complaint preferred against them, who have done their official duty in accordance with the SARFAESI Act, and not to interfere in connection with the issue involved in O.A.No.439 of 2015, pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal No.II, Chennai, between the complainant and the bank i.e., the petitioners.

¶11

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

¶12

petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶13

It is seen that these petitioners are Senior Officers of State Bank of India, Perambalur Branch, which had granted loan to the tune of Rs.1,20,00,000/- to one Palaniyandi, for which his family members viz., Ammasi, mother of Palaniyandi and Maruthayee, sister of Palaniyandi, stood as guarantors. Since the said Palaniyandi did not repay the loan amount, the officers of the Bank initiated action under the SARFAESI Act, as aggrieved by which, Ammasi, mother of Palaniyandi, filed a private complaint Crl.MP.No.1738 of 2016 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., against the officers, based on which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, by an order dated 05.03.2016, has directed the police to register an FIR. Challenging the said order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, the petitioners have preferred a petition in Crl.OP.No.9571 of 2016, in which, today this Court has granted stay of all further proceedings on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, Ammasi (in Crl.OP.9571 of 2016).

¶14

In view of the above, the respondent Police is directed not to harass the petitioners. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ds To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Perambalur District. 2.The Inspector of Police Mangalamedu Police Station, Perambalur District. 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai. Crl.O.P.No.8810 of 2016 rk co kra 14.07.2016

¶15

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

L.David v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.David 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

V.Natarajan Vs State Rep. by

H.Anji Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Lvr and Dong-in Stone Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Moorthy Vs the Inspector of Police

Balu Vs State by

Sheela Vs the Inspector of Police