Disposed

Shaik Mubarak v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Apr 2016CRL OP/9519/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought a direction for the police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of a pending inquiry. The court directed the police to refrain from harassment while continuing lawful investigation per D.K.Basu.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry while allowing lawful investigation and summons issuance.

Shaik Mubarak Vs the Inspector of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.04.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.9519 of 2016

¶6

Shaik Mubarak .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs. The Inspector of Police, Mylapore Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai. .. Respondent

¶8

Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent, Inspector of Police, Mylapore Police Station not to harass the petitioner, his family members and his workers, who is doing the demolishing works and their land based on the illegal activities of Mr.Naresh and Deepa.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Pasupathy For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶10

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, directing the respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the respondent is harassing the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and hence, he pray for direction directing the respondent police not to harass the petitioner.

¶12

At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, petition enquiry in C.S.R.No.458 of 2016 is pending.

¶13

Considering the above submissions, the respondent is directed not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, but let the police investigate into the matter in

¶14

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

¶15

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 police to issue summons to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner shall appear before the police and submit him for interrogation.

¶16

The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶17

cse

¶18

s/d-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(J)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Mylapore Police Station,
Mylapore,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+ 1 cc to M/s.L.Poomparai, Advocate, SR 26669
ks(co)
prk31/5 Crl.O.P.No.9519 of 2016

¶20

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

Shaik Mubarak v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Mubarak v. the Inspector 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

K.Manimaran Vs G.Sarangapani

P.Mani Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

L.Selvaraj Vs Mr.Vetrivendan

Thulasiammal Vs State Rep by

Aleem Basha Vs Smt.M.Faaiza Samreen

S.Murugammal Vs the State Rep. by Its