Dismissed

Jothimani v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC24 Aug 2016CRL OP(MD)/22841/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition under Section 482 CrPC sought police protection for the petitioner and family. The court dispensed with notice to the accused and directed the police respondents to consider the petition's representation and pass orders on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation of 05.11.2015 and pass orders on merits.

Jothimani Vs the Superintendent of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.08.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.22841 of 2015

¶7

Jothimani .. Petitioner

¶8

1.The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul

¶9

2.The Sub Inspector of Police Ayakkudi Police Station Dindigul District

¶10

3.Elladurai .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER:Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2^nd respondent to give necessary police protection to the petitioner and his family members.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Muthusamy For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani 1&2 Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to give necessary police protection to the petitioner and his family members.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the registration of the case under Sections 354, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.81/2015, the third respondent/accused person is stated to be creating problems by trying to encroach upon the property of the petitioner herein and hence, the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 seeking police protection for him and his family members. Since the said representation has not been considered so far, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.

¶17

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

¶18

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit

¶19

¶20

that it is agreeable for them to consider the representation.

¶21

In the light of the limited prayer asked for notice to the 3^rd respondent is dispensed with.

¶22

Under such circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 are

¶23

directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.11.2015 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶24

With the above direction, this petition is disposed of.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (P&A)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

¶31

1.The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul

¶32

2.The Sub Inspector of Police Ayakkudi Police Station Dindigul District

¶33

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

¶34

+1 cc to Mr.P.Muthusamy,Advocate, Sr.No: 47178 JAM/GSV-PM/9.09.16/2P-5C

¶35

Crl.O.P(MD)No.22841 of 2015

¶36

24.08.2016

¶37

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

Jothimani v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jothimani 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

Ashok Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Kasirajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Anitha Varadhan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Rm.Arun Swaminathan Vs the Executive Magistrate

Karthick Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

A.Anand Vs the Superintendent of Police