Petitioner sought direction under Cr.P.C. to stop police harassment based on a false complaint. Court accepted Government Advocate's submission that inquiry was closed and presence not required, ordering the petition closed with no specific relief granted.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.08.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3005 of 2015
R.Parthasarathi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Peravurani Police Station, Peravurani, Thanjavur District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner and his family based on the false complaint given by Mrs.Nathiya/defacto complainant on 13.02.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Karunanithi
For respondents : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan, Government Advocate(Criminal side)
ORDER
It is an application seeking a direction to the second respondent not to harass the petitioner and his family members on the basis of false complaint given by Mrs.Nathiya/defacto complainant on 13.02.2015.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent frequently called the petitioner and harassed him and his family members under the guise of enquiry in respect of the complaint lodged by one Mrs.Nathiya.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the petitioner was enquired only on the basis of the complaint given by one Mrs.Nathiya; after enquiry, that petition was closed; now the presence of the petitioner is not required;
2
and the 2nd respondent Police did not cause any harassment to the petitioner and his family members.
5.Recording the above submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed.
Sd/
Assistant Registrar(CS-I)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar.
To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Peravurani Police Station, Peravurani, Thanjavur District.
3.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3005 of 2015
gcg AM/PV//08.09.2016/2P/4C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second respondent police should be directed not to harass the petitioner and his family based on a false complaint.
Whether the petitioner was being harassed by the police since the issue was closed after enquiry.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Parthasarathi
The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur
The Inspector of Police, Peravurani Police Station
DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
