Disposed

M. Indrani, W/O.Mahalingam, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC24 Oct 2018CRL OP(MD)/18491/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court disposed of two criminal original petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking police protection for petitioners, who were relatives of a boy involved in a marriage dispute. The court noted the third respondent had given a police undertaking on 22.10.2018 not to disturb them and instructed police to act if the undertaking was violated.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petitions disposed of; petitioners instructed to approach police in case of breach of the third respondent's undertaking.

M. Indrani, W/O.Mahalingam, Vs the Superintendent of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.10.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18491 & 18492 of 2018

¶3

1.M.Indrani ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.18491 of 2018 2.V.Narayanasamy ....Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.18492 of 2018

¶4

Vs.

¶5

1.The Superintendent of Police Madurai District

¶6

2.The Inspector of Police Thirumangalam Police Madurai City

¶7

3.J.D.Vijayan ...Respondents in both the petitions

¶8

PRAYER in Crl.O.P(MD).No.18491 of 2018 : These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to give adequate police protection for life and limb of the petitioner and her son, namely, Sabarinathan and her family members, based on the complaint dated 09.10.2018.

¶9

PRAYER in Crl.O.P(MD).No.18492 of 2018 : These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to give adequate police protection for life and limb of the petitioner and his son, namely, Thillainathan and his family members, based on the complaint dated 09.10.2018.

¶10

For Petitioners :Mr.S.Sivaprakash in both the petitions

¶11

For R1 & R2 :Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) in both the petitions

¶12

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking for police protection.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the third respondent's daughter and one Sarathkumar had an affair

¶14

¶15

and they both went and married against the wishes of their parents. Thereafter, the parents of the girl started threatening the relatives of the boy and a complaint was also given before the police in this regard. The Ambur Police Station, Vellore District called the parties and enquired them and during the enquiry, the third respondent and others appeared before the Police. During the enquiry, the daughter of the third respondent specifically stated that she is not willing to go with her parents and she should not be disturbed in her matrimonial life with the above said Sarathkumar.

¶16

3.The petitioners herein are relatives of the boy. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the third respondent has continuously sending rowdy elements and threatening these petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have given a complaint before the respondent police seeking for police protection.

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on instruction, would submit that the Police conducted an enquiry, on the complaint given by the petitioners. The third respondent, who appeared before the police has given a written undertaking that he will not in any way cause any threat and disturbance to the petitioners at any point of time in future. This written undertaking was given by the third respondent before the Police on 22.10.2018.

¶18

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners by way of reply would submit that inspite of giving such an undertaking, the third respondent has continued to disturb and caused threat to the petitioners by sending rowdy elements.

¶19

6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has produced the letter given by the third respondent before the police, undertaking not to interfere or cause disturbance to the petitioners. The Police have closed the complaint only based on the undertaking given by the third respondent. If after giving this undertaking, the third respondent either by himself or through his agents or any other persons, continue to give any disturbance or threat to the petitioners, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the respondent police and the respondent police shall immediately take action against the third respondent, since the third respondent is going against the undertaking given by him before the respondent police. If necessary the respondent police may also give necessary police protection to the petitioners.

¶20

7.With this observation, these Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

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

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶26

¶27

¶28

1.The Superintendent of Police Madurai District 2.The Inspector of Police Thirumangalam Police Madurai City

¶29

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

¶30

1 CC TO Mr.S.Sivaprakash , ADVOCATE IN SR No. 91478.

¶31

MSA

¶32

DS SKN SAR3 25 10 2018 3P 5C

¶33

Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18491 & 18492 of 2018 24.10.2018

¶34

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

M. Indrani, W/O.Mahalingam, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Indrani, W/O.Mahalingam, 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

V. Sathish Kumar Vs P. Balamurugan

M.Subramanian Vs State of Bank of Indian

Ahamed Khamil Vs M/S.Trichy Aishwarayam Chit

K.Raja, M/a 75 Years, Vs S.Sunthara Vadivu, F/a 34 Yrs

K.S.Xavier, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

M/S.Blue Star Medical Vs S.Sethuraman