Disposed

P.Karuppannan v. Sujithkumar I.P.S

Madras HC27 Sept 2019CONT P/1356/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that observations in a previous order did not constitute positive directions requiring executive action. Consequently, the contempt petition against the Superintendent of Police for willful disobedience could not be maintained, though the petitioner was directed to send a complaint in a new paragraph post order. The petition was closed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Petition stands closed.

P.Karuppannan Vs Sujithkumar I.P.S — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Cont.P.No.1356 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.09.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Cont.P.No.1356 of 2019

¶7

P.Karuppannan ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs. Sujithkumar, I.P.S., The Superintendent of police, Aranganathapuram, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore. ...Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent herein for contempt of willfully disobeying the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.4700 of 2016.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gunalan For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This petition is filed seeking to punish the respondent herein for contempt of willfully disobeying the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.4700 of 2016.

¶13

2.The observations made in the order of this Court dated 22.02.2019 passed in W.P.No.4700 of 2016 are not positive directions to the respondent herein. Since on the

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ facts of the case, it cannot be said that there is a

¶15

1/2

¶16

Cont.P.No.1356 of 2019

¶17

disobedience of the order of this Court dated 22.02.2019, this Contempt Petition cannot be maintained.

¶18

Nevertheless, in view of the observations made in

¶19

the said order, the petitioner herein sent a copy of the complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 27.03.2019.

¶20

Since the petitioner herein has sent a complaint to the respondent herein based on the observations made by this Court, the respondent herein shall endeavour to further action on the same in a manner known to law, as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶21

SD/-

¶22

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶23

vkr/ssr

¶24

//Certified to be true copy//

¶25

Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.

¶26

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶27

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶28

Smi/24/10/2019

¶29

¶30

The Superintendent of police, Aranganathapuram, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore.

¶31

The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶32

High Court of Madras.

¶33

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

¶34

2/2

P.Karuppannan v. Sujithkumar I.P.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Karuppannan v. Sujithkumar I.P.S

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

Shoeb Ali Khan Vs Arjumand Ara

Santhosh Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Nataraj Vs The District Collector

Mohanraj Vs Riya Sudeen

Vatchala Vs State Rep. by

S.Shahul Vs the State Rep by