Disposed

D.Kantilal v. the State Represented by

Madras HC26 Nov 2018CRL OP/27386/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Cr.O.P. filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by directing the respondent police to complete the enquiry into the crime against unknown persons promptly, while ensuring the petitioner is not harassed during the process.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to cooperate with enquiry; respondent police directed not to harass petitioner and to complete enquiry and identify accused at the earliest.

D.Kantilal Vs the State Represented by — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.11.2018

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶4

Crl.O.P.No.27386 of 2018

¶5

D.Kantilal ...Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Paramathi Police Station, Namakkal.

¶8

2.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent, Namakkal, Namakkal District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry on the complaint made by one Sellammal in Crime No.162 of 2018 on the file of the 2^nd respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Raja Sehar For Respondents :Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶10

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents police have registered an FIR in Crime No.162 of 2018 against unknown persons for an offence under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC on 17.09.2018. In this regard, the petitioner is being repeatedly called for the police and enquired.

¶12

Admittedly in this case, FIR has been filed against unknown persons. The respondent is in the process of identifying in the actual accused person and therefore, the petitioner has been called for an enquiry. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the enquiry and it is also made clear that the respondent police shall not harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry. The respondent police shall complete the enquiry and identify the actual person at the earliest possible time in order to proceed further with the investigation.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS) Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

//True Copy//

¶17

¶18

1.The Inspector of Police,
Paramathi Police Station,
Namakkal.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent,
Namakkal,
Namakkal District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.M.Raja Sehar, Advocate SR.No. 80238
Crl.O.P.No.27386 of 2018
ASK(17/12/2018)

¶19

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

D.Kantilal v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Kantilal v. the State Represented 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

A.Arulnathan Vs the State Rep. by Its

C.Ravindran Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police

Arun Jain Vs Ashok Tex

K.S.Sivakumar Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Ponmani Vs State Rep by Its

C.Supramaniyam Vs the Inspector of Police