Disposed

Patchaiyammal, Senior Citizen, v. The Director General of Police

Madras HC18 Oct 2016WP/36419/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by the mother of a suspect in a fatal fireworks factory explosion, where police were apprehending him. The Court held that while police must investigate such mishaps, it directed them not to unnecessarily harass the octogenarian mother living in Puducherry, yet she must cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to cooperate with police; directed not to unnecessarily harass petitioner; petition closed.

Patchaiyammal, Senior Citizen, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 18..10..2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Writ Petition No.36419 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.31365 of 2016

¶3

Patchaiyammal ... Petitioner -Versus1.The Director General of Police, No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Master Plan Complex, Collector Office Road, Villupuram 635 602. 3.The Inspector of Police, Arovile Police Station, Villupuram District. 4.The Superintendent of Police (South), Police Complex, Thavalakuppam, Puducherry-7. 5.The Inspector of Police, Ariyankuppam Police Station, Puducherry-7. ... Respondents

¶4

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of inquiry in respect of case in Crime No. 678 of 2016 on the file of the 3rd respondent police registered against the petitioner's son in the light of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.10.2016 to the respondents.

¶5

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vasanthakumar For Respondent(s) : Mr.C.Emalias, APP for R1 & R2, R3 : Mr.M.R.Thangavel, PP for Puducherry for R4 & R5

¶6

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

¶7

ORDER

¶8

This petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of inquiry in connection with the case in Crime No.678 of 2016 on the file of the 3rd respondent police.

¶9

It is seen that a major explosion took place in a Fireworks Factory allegedly run by the petitioner's son in which five persons have lost their lives and several persons sustained injuries and in connection with the said fire accident, a case in Crime No.678 of 2016 has been registered for offences under Sections 285 and 304(ii) of IPC r/w Section 3 of The Explosives and Substances Act against the petitioner's son Sekar and investigation is in progress. Since Sekar is in abscondance, the police are taking steps to apprehend him. The petitioner is a resident of Ariyankuppam in Puducherry. It is alleged by the petitioner that the police are harassing her in the guise of investigation and therefore, she has come up with this writ petition for the above said relief.

¶10

In a case of such serious mishap wherein five persons have lost their lives and several persons have sustained injuries, it is imperative for the police to take all steps to bring the offender to justice and in that process, if any inconvenience is caused to the petitioner, who is the mother of the suspect, the same cannot be a subject matter of judicial review in exercise of the power of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the police in the inquiry and the police are directed not to unnecessarily harass the petitioner as she being an octogenarian and is said to be living separately in Union Territory of Puducherrry. If the petitioner resists the lawful apprehension of the suspect and harbors the offender, it is needless to state that this order will not in any way preclude the respondent police from initiating a separate prosecution against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶11

In the result, this writ petition is closed with the above directions. Consequently, connected WMP is closed.

¶12

/true copy/

¶13

kmk

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

1.The Director General of Police,
No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District,
Master Plan Complex,
Collector Office Road,
Villupuram 635 602.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Arovile Police Station,
Villupuram District.
4.The Superintendent of Police (South),
Police Complex,
Thavalakuppam,
Puducherry-7.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Ariyankuppam Police Station,
Puducherry-7.
+1 CC to Mr.V.Vasanthakumar, Advocate Sr.59488
CO-KJI
ths : 15.11.2016
W.P.No.36419 of 2016

¶17

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

Patchaiyammal, Senior Citizen, v. The Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patchaiyammal, Senior Citizen, v. The Director General 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

R.Usha Vs the Superintendent of Police

Miss.K.Vijaya Shankari Vs Mr.Vasanth Kumar Sarma

A.N.Ravi Andrews Vs the Inspector of Police

K.a.Kannan Vs The Inspector of Police

K.Palanivel Vs The Inspector of Police

Vasanthi, Vs The Deputy Superintendent