Dismissed

M.Gopi v. Superintendent of Police

Madras HC4 Jun 2019CRL OP/10471/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking police protection, ruling that the cause of action had expired due to the lapse of time since the 2015 filing. The Court directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation if protection becomes necessary in the future.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; direction to make fresh representation to police if protection is required in future.

M.Gopi Vs Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

CRL.OP.No. 10471 of 2015

¶6

M.Gopi ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Superintendent Office,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Arakkonam Taluk,
Vellore District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Avalore Police Station,
Ocheri, Kaveripakkam Union,
Vellore District.
4. V.Paranthaman
5. Nepoliyan
6. K.Vikraman
7. M.Munusami
8. Rajukumar
9. Sukumar
10. Rasul
11.Rasukutti
12.Prathap ....Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to give police protection to the petitioner and other members residing at Bajanai Koil Street Kalathur Colony, Kalathur Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District.

¶8

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

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deivasigamani

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan

¶11

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 to R3 : Mr.V.Sarath for R5 to R9 and R11 & R12

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for police protection.

¶14

The petition was filed in the year 2015. By efflux of time, the cause of action that has been projected to seek for the relief of police protection, may not survive at this length of time and this Court is not inclined to grant any police protection.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents submitted that the respondents have been acquitted from all the criminal cases registered against them.

¶16

If and when the petitioner encounters a situation wherein he requires police protection for the life and property, a fresh representation can be made to the respondent police and the same shall be considered and a proper action shall be taken in accordance with law.

¶17

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

¶21

The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent Office, Vellore District, Vellore.

¶22

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

¶23

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arakkonam Taluk,

¶24

Vellore District.

¶25

The Inspector of Police, Avalore Police Station, Ocheri, Kaveripakkam Union, Vellore District.

¶26

The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to M/S.D.Nagasaila, Advocate Sr.45042
CRL.OP.No.10471 of 2015
bp[co]
srg 8/07/2019

¶27

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

M.Gopi v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Gopi v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govindammal @ Suganthi Vs the Superintendent of Police

K. Murugaiyan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Parthasarathy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Vs the Director General of

T.Vijaya Prabhu Vs S.Srinivasan

P.Sankaranarayanan Vs the Commissioner of Police