Disposed

K.Rasamuthu, v. The Deputy Inspector General

Madras HC22 Mar 2016WP/10551/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madras High Court quashed the petition against the accused as petitioner gave it up. The Court directed the First Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for prosecution sanction within four weeks and disposed of the writ.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the representation for granting sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. within four weeks. Petition against the second respondent given up. Writ petition disposed

K.Rasamuthu, Vs The Deputy Inspector… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:22.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. MALA

¶5

W.P.No.10551 of 2016

¶6

K.Rasamuthu .. Petitioner
.. Vs ..
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Salem.
2. C.Asaithambi,
Sub-Inspector of Police,
S/o.Chinnathambi,
Jaya Theatre Back sides,
Nehru Nagar, Omalur,
Salem District. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2016 and grant sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute against the second accused.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy
For R-1 : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi,
Additional Government Pleader
For R-2 : Given up
- - - - -
ORDER

¶9

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2016 and grant sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute against the second accused.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the first respondent.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has given a representation dated 25.02.2016 to the first respondent seeking sanction under Section 197 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cr.P.C. to prosecute against the second respondent herein.

¶12

But since the first respondent has not shown any interest to dispose of the said representation, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to give up the second respondent and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶13

Recording the submission and the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition, as against the second respondent, is given up.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation given by the petitioner dated 25.02.2016 for granting sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute against one C.Asaithambi, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is
disposed of. No costs.
Jrl
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Salem.

¶16

The Additional Government Pleader, High Court, Madras.

¶17

1 cc to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate Sr 18187

¶18

KR/4/4/16

¶19

W.P.No.10551 of 2016

¶20

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

K.Rasamuthu, v. The Deputy Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rasamuthu, v. The Deputy Inspector General

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

M/s.Naser Tanning Company, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

N.Paul Vs Vinod Kumar

Jaya Murugan Vs Mr.S.Madhan

Thavamani Vs R.Palani

Saththar Singh Vs State by

Tr.Vivek Chopra Vs State Rep by