Disposed

M.Meera Mohideen, v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC16 Mar 2017CRL OP(MD)/2563/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed the police to reopen a petition enquiry after petitioners failed to honor an undertaking to return jewels. Court allowed investigation but directed it not be conducted via harassment, though registration of FIR and arrest remain permissible if a cognizable offence is made out.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent police to reopen the petition enquiry; directed petitioners to participate without harassment; permitted FIR registration and arrest if a cognizable offence is made out.

M.Meera Mohideen, Vs the Commissioner of Police — Madras HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.03.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶4

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2563 of 2017

¶5

1.M.Meera Mohideen 2.M.Moideen Abdul Kadher Jailani : Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Commissioner of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶8

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul (Town), Dindigul, Dindigul District. : Respondents

¶9

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the 2^nd respondent not to harass the petitioners in the guise of investigation, except by due process of law.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Senthil Kumar

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan

¶12

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *******

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent not to harass the petitioners in the guise of investigation, except by due process of law.

¶15

2.Heard Mr.M.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.Anbarasan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents.

¶16

3.On the complaint lodged by one Ayisha Banu W/o M.Moideen Abdul Kadher Jailani, the second petitioner herein, petition enquiry was conducted in C.No.105/AWPS/DGL/16 and during the petition enquiry the petitioners herein agreed to return the jewels and other articles to Ayisha Banu. On the strength of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ undertaking given by the petitioners, the petition enquiry was closed on 13.11.2016. But the petitioners did not keep up with the

¶17

¶18

undertaking given to the police. Therefore, Ayisha Banu has once again approached the respondent for appropriate action against the petitioners. At this juncture the petitioners are before this Court with the above prayer.

¶19

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second petitioner is Tailor by profession and if two months time is given he will settle the jewels and other articles to Ayisha Banu.

¶20

5.In view of the above, this Court directs the second respondent police to reopen the petition enquiry. The petitioners are directed to participate in the enquiry and during enquiry, they shall not be harassed. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police is free to register an FIR and this order shall not be a shield for the petitioners against arrest.

¶21

With the above direction, this petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

1.The Commissioner of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶24

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul (Town), Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶25

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

¶26

+1cc to M/s. M.SENTHIL KUMAR Advocate in SR. No.15548 sj JS/RR/28.03.2017/2P-5C

¶27

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2563 of 2017 16.03.2017

¶28

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

M.Meera Mohideen, v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Meera Mohideen, v. the Commissioner 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