Disposed

Nachiammal, W/O.Muruganantham v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC2 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/1586/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC to restrain the second respondent from harassing the petitioner and her family members allegedly on the guise of an enquiry initiated based on a false complaint by the third respondent arising from a money dispute. The court directed the police to complete the enquiry without harassment.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to dispose of the petition given by the third respondent after conducting an enquiry, ensuring no harassment be inflicted on the petitioner and her family.

Nachiammal, W/O.Muruganantham Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.02.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1586 of 2018

¶7

Nachiammal ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

State rep. by 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District.

¶10

3.Selvaraj ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: This Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner and her family members, on the guise of enquiry except under due process of law.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.K. Malathi For Respondents : Mr.Prabhu Ramachandran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner and her family members, under the guise of enquiry, based upon the complaint given by the third respondent.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that due to money dispute, the third respondent gave a false complaint against the petitioner and based on the said complaint, the second respondent is harassing the petitioner.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the third respondent gave a complaint against the petitioner herein, with regard to money transaction and hence, the said complaint is pending for enquiry. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been subjected to any harassment.

¶17

¶18

Considering the aforesaid submissions, the second

¶19

respondent is directed to dispose of the petition given by the third respondent, after conducting enquiry and during the said enquiry, the petitioner and her family members should not be subjected to any harassment.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

¶26

2.The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District.

¶27

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

¶28

1 CC TO M/s.K.MALATHI, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 45699 TRP TE/SV-MMS/SAR-1 : 08/02/2018 : 2P/5C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1586 of 2018 02.02.2018

¶29

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

Nachiammal, W/O.Muruganantham v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nachiammal, W/O.Muruganantham v. the Superintendent 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

Umeshnathan Vs R.Meenakshi

D.Ramaraj Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

National Institute of Siddha Vs the Commissioner of Police

Selvaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

B.Chandra Prabha Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Nisar Ahamed, Vs the Superintendent of Police