Dismissed

P.Murugesan, v. Mrs.Idyakala

Madras HC12 Jun 2017CONT P(MD)/643/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, the petitioner sought punishment for willful disobedience of a prior order. The Court found that an enquiry was conducted based on the petitioner's complaint and a closure report was sent and received. Finding that the earlier order was complied with, the Court closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; liberty given to petitioner to work out remedy known to law.

P.Murugesan, Vs Mrs.Idyakala — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.06.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶4

Contempt Petition (MD).No.643 of 2016 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23372 of 2015

¶5

P.Murugesan ... Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.

¶6

Mrs.Idyakala The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, District Police Office, Trichy-20. ... Contemnor/Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to initiate contempt proceedings against the Contemnor/ Respondent and punish her for the willful disobedience of the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23372 of 2015, dated 10.12.2015 and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Prayer in CRL OP(MD). 23372/ 2015 :

¶8

To direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to register the case on the Petitioners complaint dated 20.11.2015

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthick Subramanian

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the order, dated 10.12.2015 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD).No.23372 of 2015 has been complied with, inasmuch as on the complaint given by the petitioner a petition enquiry was conducted and the same was closed on 12.12.2015 and the closure report was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due and the same has also been received by the petitioner. Recording the same, this contempt petition is closed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

¶13

Sd/-

¶14

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶15

/True Copy/

¶16

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

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

¶19

¶20

Mrs.Idyakala The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, District Police Office, Trichy-20

¶21

jikr AE/MR/SAR3/21.06.2017/2P/2C

¶22

Order made in Contempt Petition (MD).No.643 of 2016 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23372 of 2015 12.06.2017

¶23

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

P.Murugesan, v. Mrs.Idyakala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Murugesan, v. Mrs.Idyakala

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

Pattu Vs Madurai Veeran

Senthil, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mohamed Rila, Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.Gnanasundaram Vs the Superintendent of Police

Manikandan Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Muthukrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police