Disposed

Dr.S.Kavi, F/a 36 Years, v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC23 Feb 2018CRL OP/845/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to obstruction by private respondents in running his clinic. Court directed the police to verify the petition and conduct a necessary enquiry, disposing of the matter. No specific police protection order was granted; inquiry was mandated.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint, conduct an enquiry, and pass appropriate orders after verification.

Dr.S.Kavi, F/a 36 Years, Vs the Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No. 845 of 2018

Dr.S.Kavi

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, Vepary, Chennai – 600 007. 2.The Inspector of Police, M-4, Redhills Police Station, Redhills, Chennai – 600 052. 3.Prem Kumar @ Prem 4.Revathi .. Respondents (Respondent 3 & 4 are impleaded as per order dated 19.01.2018 made in Crl.M.P.No.584/2018)

¶10

Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the respondents to give police protection to the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Gopi Krishnan For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, Government Advocate(Crl. Side)

¶12

For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.S.Janarthanam

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The limited prayer sought for by the petitioner is to provide police protection to him, in view of the obstruction raised by the respondents 3 and 4 thereby preventing the petitioner from running SK Clinic at No.10, Kasi Vishwanathan Street, Redhills, Chennai.

¶15

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents 3 and 4 have no authority to raise such obstruction.

¶16

This court, exercising its power under section 482

¶17

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

¶18

Cr.P.C. cannot go into the findings of such factual aspects and it is for the second respondent police to verify the relief sought for by the petitioner and pass necessary orders.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in connection with the petitioner's complaint dated 30.12.2017, the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the second respondent. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 also submits that in case, enquiry conducted, the respondents 3 and 4 will cooperate with the same.

¶20

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 30.12.2017 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders after conducting necessary enquiry. While conduct of such an enquiry, the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 and 4 are at liberty to give their written objections, if any.

¶21

6.With the above observations and direction, the Criminal
Original petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nl
To
1.The Commissioner of Police, Vepary, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
M-4, Redhills Police Station,
Redhills, Chennai – 600 052.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.S.Janarthanam, Advocate, S.R.No.14562
+1cc to Mr.D.Gopi Krishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.13958

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.845 of 2018 RRK(19/03/2018)

¶23

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

Dr.S.Kavi, F/a 36 Years, v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.S.Kavi, F/a 36 Years, 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

V.Kailash, Aged 35 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

Seshadri, M/a 30 Yrs, Vs the Superintendent of Police

C.Srithar, S/O.Chandran, Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Gajendran Vs Dr.M.Sai Kumar, I.A.S

S.P. Hari Babu, Aged 45 Vs Inspector of Police

R.Vijayarangan Vs State by: