Disposed

Jaithunbee, Age 62, v. State Rep. by

Madras HC9 Jun 2017CRL OP/7488/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for adequate police protection during a survey of Wakf lands. The court disposed of the petition by ordering the authorities to pass appropriate orders within four weeks without adjudicating the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation for police protection during survey and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Jaithunbee, Age 62, Vs State Rep. by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7488 of 2017

¶6

Jaithunbee ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs State rep. by 1. Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District. 2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee, Villupuram District. 3. Inspector of Police Gingee Police Station, Gingee, Villupuram District. ... Respondents

¶8

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent to give adequate police protection for conducting survey by District Chief Surveyor, Gingee in petitioner's Periakanchikulam Wakf Mosque Trust, Krishnapuram Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District, considering the petitioner representation on 06.03.2017.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent police to give adequate police protection for conducting survey of the petitioner's Periakanchikulam Wakf landed properties situated at Krishnapuram Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District, based on the representation dated 06.03.2017.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶13

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

¶14

Considering the limited nature of the relief sought for herein, this Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.03.2017 requesting them to provide adequate police protection for surveying Periakanchikulam Wakf lands belonging to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing due notice to the petitioner as well as all the necessary parties. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

With the above direction, this Criminal Original
Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rk
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Gingee, Villupuram District.
3. The Inspector of Police
Gingee Police Station,
Gingee, Villupuram District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras -104.
+1cc to Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef, Advocate, S.R.No.40978
Crl.O.P.No.7488 of 2017

¶16

NR(CO) CA(16/06/2017)

¶17

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

Jaithunbee, Age 62, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaithunbee, Age 62, v. State Rep. by

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

G.Sathya, Aged 34 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

Immanuel, Aged 42 Years, Vs State Rep. by Its

G.Vijayakumar Vs The Managing Director

Balaji, M/30 Vs the State of Tn Rep by Its

Janarthanam, 67 Years Vs Major J.Victor

A.R.Meenakshi Vs S.Chandra