Disposed

Gunasekaran v. the Superintendnet of Police

Madras HC16 Mar 2017CRL OP(MD)/1901/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted a direction in a Criminal Original Petition that the petitioner not be harassed by the police during a pending investigation. The order affirmed that registration of FIR or arrest is permissible if a cognizable offence is made out, stating the direction is not a shield against arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed not to be harassed during pending enquiry; order clarified it is not a shield against FIR registration or arrest if offence is made out.

Gunasekaran Vs the Superintendnet of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.03.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1901 of 2017

¶6

Gunasekaran : Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The State represented by, Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.Selvam 3.Anand : Respondents Mahendran : Intervener

¶9

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent to not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry without due process of law.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pitchaimuthu For 1^st Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan *******

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry without due process of law.

¶13

2.Heard Mr.M.Pitchaimuthu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.Anbarasan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the 1^st respondent and Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor.

¶14

3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that on the complaint of Mahendran (intervenor) a petition enquiry is pending in CSR No.186 of 2016 before the Musiri Police Station.

¶15

The petitioner is directed to participate in the enquiry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and during enquiry, he shall not be harassed. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent

¶16

¶17

police is free to register an FIR and this order shall not be a shield for the petitioner against arrest.

¶18

With the above direction, this petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶25

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

¶26

+1 CC to M/s.S.MUTHUKRISHNAN, Advocate, SR No. 15960 SJ

¶27

PSM/SV-MMS/27.03.2017/2P/4C

¶28

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1901 of 2017 16.03.2017

¶29

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

Gunasekaran v. the Superintendnet of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunasekaran v. the Superintendnet 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

Chandrasekaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Vengateshwaran Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

S.Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Paramasivan, Vs the Commissioner

Karuppiah Vs the Superintendent of Police

G.Kannan Vs the Commissioner of Police