Dismissed

Dr.M.Chellakrishnan v. the District Superintendent

Madras HC19 Aug 2016CRL OP(MD)/2275/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC, Dr. M. Chellakrishnan sought to stop harassment by the second respondent IPC in a civil matter. The Court recorded the respondents' submission that no harassment occurred as the previous enquiry was closed, and closed the petition without further ado.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition closed without further order after recording respondents' submission.

Dr.M.Chellakrishnan Vs the District Superintendent — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.08.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2275 of 2015

¶7

Dr.M.Chellakrishnan .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District,

¶10

Ramanathapuram.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (Land Grabbing), Ramanathapuram,

¶12

Ramanathapuram District. .. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of an enquiry in a civil matter without following due process of law.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan

¶15

For respondents : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan,

¶16

Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

It is an application seeking a direction to the second respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

¶19

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

¶20

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent frequently called the petitioner and harassed him under the guise of enquiry in respect of a civil dispute.

¶21

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner was enquired only on the basis of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition given against him; after enquiry, that petition was closed; now the presence of the petitioner is not required; and the 2^nd respondent Police did not cause any harassment to the

¶22

¶23

petitioner.

¶24

5.Recording the above submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶27

/TRUE COPY/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

gcg To

¶30

1.The District Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶31

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (Land Grabbing), Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶32

3.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶33

Jam/SKS-RR/1.9.16/2P-4C

¶34

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2275 of 2015 19.08.2016

¶35

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

Dr.M.Chellakrishnan v. the District Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.M.Chellakrishnan v. the District Superintendent

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

A.Seethaiammal Vs the Commissioner of Police

C. Sankara Subramanian Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Lavanya Vs the Superintendent of Police

Senthurpandi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

R.Parthasarathi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sundar Rajan Vs the Superintendent of Police