Disposed

C.a.Kavitha v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC23 Aug 2018CRL OP(MD)/2108/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order disposed of a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought directions to prevent harassment by police and a medical officer during an inquiry. The court directed the petitioner to cooperate and restricted police summons absent an FIR, while preserving the right to prosecute if an offence is made out.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to cooperate with inquiry; prohibited police from summoning the petitioner regularly without an FIR; ordered closure of the petition.

C.a.Kavitha Vs the Superintendent of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.08.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2108 of 2018

C.A.Kavitha

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Record Bureau,

¶12

Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

3.Kanyakumari District Siddha Medical Officer, Indian Medicine & Homeopathy Department, Kottar, Nagercoil-2, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

4.Rahmathullah

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the second and third respondents not to harass the petitioner based on the complaint dated 05.10.2017 given by the fourth respondent herein.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvakumaran For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second and third respondents not to harass the petitioner and his family members unnecessarily against law under the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondents.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that on the complaint given by the defacto complainant against the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending in C.S.R. No.171 of 2016 on the file of the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent police.

¶21

¶22

The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the police for enquiry and at the time of conducting of the enquiry, the petitioner shall not be harassed by the police. The police cannot call the petitioner on a regular basis in the guise of enquiry without even registering an FIR and Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353 has enumerated the nature of cases where preliminary enquiry can be conducted and has also restricted the period, for which preliminary enquiry can be conducted. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, second respondent is free to register an FIR and this order shall not be a shield for the petitioner against the respondent proceeding to take action in accordance with law.

¶23

With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶27

¶28

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶29

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Record Bureau, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶30

3.Kanyakumari District Siddha Medical Officer, Indian Medicine & Homeopathy Department, Kottar, Nagercoil-2, Kanyakumari District.

¶31

1 CC TO Mr.T.Selvakumaran , ADVOCATE IN SR No.79910. GNS DS PM SAR-2 10.10.2018 2P/5C

¶32

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2108 of 2018

¶33

21.08.2018

¶34

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

C.a.Kavitha v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.a.Kavitha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Edwin Altrin Vs the Superintendent of Police

C. Mohan Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramar, Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Udhayakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Prasanna, Vs the Inspector of Police