Dismissed

M.Hepzhiba v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC31 Aug 2020CRL OP/13302/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed seeking police protection to accommodate the petitioner in a floor of her father's property. The High Court held that police cannot grant protection when the dispute is about sharing family property and ordered the police to conduct an enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner requested police to provide protection for accommodation. Second respondent directed to conduct enquiry and pass orders on merits. Crl.O.P. dismissed.

M.Hepzhiba Vs the Commissioner of Police — Madras HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 31.08.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.13302 of 2020

¶5

M.Hepzhiba, temporarily staying at No.397/2, W-Block, C-Sector, 3^rd Avenue, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai – 600 101. ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai.

¶7

2.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, V5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai.

¶8

3.K.Manipillai Chief Judicial Magistrate – Ramnad (Retired) No.A.P.97, 1^st Street,

¶9

Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai. ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the second respondent/police to provide protection for accommodating in any one of the floors at the petitioner's parents house at A.P.97, 1^st Street, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai – 600 101, along with her belongings and household articles.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction directing the second respondent/police to provide protection for accommodating in any one of the floors at the petitioner's parents house at A.P.97, 1^st Street, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai – 600 101, along with her belongings and household articles.

¶12

2.Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.S.Karthikeyan learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents

¶13

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

¶14

3.It is seen that there is dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent, in respect of sharing their property. Instead of filing the suit for the partition, the petitioner sought for police protection to accommodate any one of the floor owned by the third respondent herein. The third respondent is none other than his own father. Therefore, the police protection to accommodate any one of the floor owned by the third respondent cannot be granted by this Court. Therefore, on devoid of merits this petition is dismissed. However, the second respondent is directed to conduct enquiry on the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the third respondent and after issue notice to the counter party the second respondent is directed to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶15

4.With the above direction, this Criminal Original
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsn
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
V5, Thirumangalam Police Station,
Chennai.
Crl.O.P.No.13302 of 2020
KK CO
SDR 19/12/2020

¶16

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

M.Hepzhiba v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Hepzhiba v. the Commissioner 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

S.Aruna Vs the Superintendent of Police

Chandrabose Vs the State Represented by

J.Ponni Vs the Commissioner of Police

N.Ashok Kumar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

T.Deepa Vs State Rep. by

L.Kottishwari Vs the State Rep. by