Disposed

K. Subramanian v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC12 Apr 2017CRL OP(MD)/1811/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Original petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking police protection and action against culprits in a civil dispute context was disposed of. The court declined the prayer for automatic police protection and action, directing the petitioner to seek representation to the 2nd respondent for specific threats. The petition was closed.

What the court decided

AI extract

K. Subramanian Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1811 of 2017

K.Subramanian

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Uppiliyapuram Police Station, Trichy.

¶11

P.Rajendran @ Balaji ... Respondents ( R3 impleaded vide order dated 12.04.2017 made in Crl.MP(MD) No.2998/2017 )

¶12

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Respondents to take necessary action against the culprits and prayed for police protection for petitioner's life and liberty based on petitioners complaints dated 18/01/2017.

¶13

For Petitioners : No Appearance For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For R3 : Mr.V.Singan

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to take necessary action against the culprits and prayed for police protection for petitioner's life and liberty based on petitioner's complaints dated 18/01/2017.

¶17

Mr.Thirupathi, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppiliyapuram Police Station is present. On instructions, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that on the complaint given by one Kanthasamy against Rajendran, petition enquiry has been conducted in CSR No.491 of 2016 and the same was closed on 11.10.2016. While so, on the complaint given by Rajendran against this petitioner, another petition enquiry has been conducted in CSR No.20 of 2017 and the same was closed on 18.01.2017.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In a case of this nature, where there are some civil disputes between the petitioner and Rajendran, the direction as

¶19

¶20

prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. However, if there is any further threat to the life of the petitioner, it is always open to the petitioner to give a representation to R2 seeking police protection and on such representation being given, the 2nd respondent shall enquire into the same and take action in accordance with law.

¶21

With the above observation, this petition is closed. Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (C) /True copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

To:

¶25

The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶26

The Inspector of Police, Uppiliyapuram Police Station, Trichy.

¶27

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.K.SIVABALAN, Advocate, SR No. 52136

¶29

¶30

PSM/MMS/05.05.2017/2P/5C

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1811 of 2017 12.04.2017

¶32

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

K. Subramanian v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K. Subramanian v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kr.Ramasamy, Vs M.Unnamalai

Kannan. Vs State Rep.by

S.Asokan, Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Ravi, Secretary (in-Chnarge Vs the Sub-Inspector

Niranjani, Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohammed Ibrahim Sate Vs the Inspector of Police