Disposed

T. S. Rajamani, 65 Yrs, v. Police E1 Police Station

Madras HC11 May 2017CRL OP/8504/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a criminal original petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking police protection to enforce a civil court interim injunction preventing obstruction of his entry into school premises by opposing parties. The court directed the police to consider the pending complaint. Petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider complaint dated 31.3.2017 and dispose of it within one week.

T. S. Rajamani, 65 Yrs, Vs Police E1 Police… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.05.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.8504 OF 2017

¶6

T.S.Rajamani, President of Thiyagi N.G.Ramasami Memorial School Committee & the Coimbatore District Textile

¶7

Workers Union having office at No.212 Thiyagi N.G.R.Mahal, Tiruchy Road, Coimbatore-641 005. ... Petitioner .. Vs .. The State rep. by Police E1 Police Station, Singanallur, Coimbatore-641 005. ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to direct the respondent police to provide sufficient police protection for the petitioner and other members of the School Committee to act in furtherance of the order dated 20.3.2017 made in I.A.No.422 of 2017 in O.S.No.453 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ravichander For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Petition has been filed Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to direct the respondent police to provide sufficient police protection for the petitioner and other members of the School Committee to act in furtherance of the order dated 20.3.2017 made in I.A.No.422 of 2017 in O.S.No.453 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.

¶12

According to the petitioner, he filed a suit in O.S.No.453 of 2017 before the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore along with interlocutory application in I.A.No.422 of

¶13

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

¶14

2017, seeking interim injunction to restrain the Parents Teachers Association and Headmaster of school from preventing ingress and egress of the petitioner and other members of School Committee into school premises while performing their day to day activities in their office situated within the premises of the school. By order, dated 20.3.2017, the learned Principal District Munsif, having satisfied that the petitioner made out prima facie case, granted interim injunction till 30.4.2017, which has been extended till date. While so, despite the interim order of the Court, according to the petitioner, the petitioner and other members of the School Committee were not permitted to exercise their official duties by obstructing their entry into the school premises at the instance of the Head Master. Aggrieved by the same, it appears that the petitioner lodged a complaint on 31.3.2017 before the respondent, seeking to take appropriate action and also to provide police protection. However, as no response was evoking, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the petitioner obtained orders from the concerned Civil Court and despite the same, it is alleged that the petitioner and the members of the School Committee were prevented from entering the school premises, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to consider the complaint dated 31.3.2017 and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

With the above direction, this Crl.Original Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

vsi2 To

¶23

1.The Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.

¶24

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

¶25

2.The Inspector of Police, E1 Police Station, Singanallur, Coimbatore-641 005.

¶26

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.D.Ravichander, Advocate Sr.8846 [24/05/2017]

¶28

CRL.O.P.8504 OF 2017
gj[co]
srg 23/05/2017

¶29

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

T. S. Rajamani, 65 Yrs, v. Police E1 Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. S. Rajamani, 65 Yrs, v. Police E1 Police Station

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

Jayapal, M/30 Years Vs State Rep.by

S.Sreekanth, Vs Jayakumar

Surendira Babu, Aged 35 Yrs Vs the Station House Officer

Ramesh, M/Aged About 40 Yrs, Vs State Rep. by Inspector of

Ashik, M/AGE-31 Years Vs State Represented by Its

Smt.Jebamani, F/A-40 Years Vs the State Rep.by Its