Disposed

S.Perumal, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC8 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/1823/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The court directed the police inspector to conduct an inquiry into a complaint without harassing the petitioner and stated that a case should only be registered if a cognizable offence is revealed.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to enquire the complaint; if a cognizable offence is revealed, to register a case; petitioner not to be harassed during enquiry.

S.Perumal, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 08.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

CRL.O.P(MD)No.1823 of 2018

¶6

S.Perumal ... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent herein not to harass the petitioner in name of enquiry without due process of law.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, to direct the second respondent herein not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

¶13

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, when the petitioner's son namely Prabhu was working in the Computer Center, he fell in love with one Anusuya aged about 21 years and subsequently, the said matter went to the All Women's Police Station, Sivagangai and the issue was settled. He further submitted that subsequently, the second respondent is harassing the petitioner by saying that he will register a false case.

¶14

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has submitted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that one Thenmozhi gave a complaint against the petitioner and his son stating that they have taken photograph with regard to her daughter Anusuya and in that complaint enquiry has been started and

¶15

only for that purpose, the petitioner was called and he was not subjected to any harassment.

¶16

4.Considering the aforesaid submissions, the second respondent is directed to enquire the complaint and if the enquiry reveals any cognizable offence, then he has to register a case and proceed further in accordance with law and further directed that during the enquiry the petitioner should not be subjected to any harassment.

¶17

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

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶20

/True Copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

The Superintendent of Police,

¶24

Sivagangai District.

¶25

The Inspector of Police,

¶26

Taluk Police Station,

¶27

Sivagangai,

¶28

Sivagangai District.

¶29

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

¶30

Madurai.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.S.Ramasamy Advocate in SR. NO. 47622

¶32

ls/das

¶33

MV:SV-MMS:SAR1:22/02/2018/2P/5C

¶34

CRL.O.P(MD)No.1823 of 2018

¶35

08.02.2018

¶36

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

S.Perumal, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Perumal, 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

Paribak Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.T.Ramakrishnan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Caroline Getsy Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Leelavathi Vs Superindent of Police

Gopal Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Muniyasamy Vs the Superintendent of Police