Disposed

P.Shanmugapriya v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC27 Sept 2016CRL OP(MD)/11095/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought police protection for herself and her sister and a direction to restrain respondents from performing a child marriage. The Court recorded that the police had stopped the marriage following an enquiry and closed the petition with liberty to represent and a direction to furnish the closure report.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make representation as and when required; second respondent police directed to furnish a copy of the closure report within two weeks.

P.Shanmugapriya Vs the Superintendent of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.09.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11095 of 2016

P.Shanmugapriya

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

¶11

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vadmadurai Police Station, Vadamadurai, Dindigul District.

3.Seethalakshmi

4.Saravanan

5.Sarasu

6.Pandiyammal

7.Vengatachalam

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2^nd respondent to give appropriate protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and her sister Thanga Tamilmani and also forbear the 3^rd to 7^th respondent from performance of child marriage.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahendran

¶20

For RR 1& 2 : Mr.K.Anbarasan

¶21

Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent police to give appropriate protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and her sister Thanga Tamilmani and also forbear the 3^rd to 7^th respondent from performing child marriage.

¶24

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on instructions, would submit that based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 17.05.2016, the respondent police stopped the

¶26

¶27

child marriage and after completion of enquiry, the petition was closed.

¶28

Recording the above submission, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation as and when required. However, the second respondent police is directed to furnish a copy of the closure report to the counsel for the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not furnished already to the petitioner.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(writ) /True copy/

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

1.The Superintendent of Police,Dindigul District.

¶34

2.The Sub Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station, Vadmadurai Police Station,Vadamadurai, Dindigul District.

¶35

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor

¶36

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.B.Kubendran, Advocate sR.No.56489

¶38

pjl

¶39

sm:PV:14.10.2016:2P/5C

¶40

Crl.O.P(MD)No.11095 of 2016

¶41

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

P.Shanmugapriya v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Shanmugapriya 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandiselvam Vs the Inspector of Police

Karthigaisamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Seethakumari Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Soundarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Ennatchimuthu Vs the Executive Divisional