Dismissed

R.Balamurugan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC7 Jan 2020CRL OP/34483/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a Crl.O.P. under Section 482 CrPC seeking protection from police harassment alleging a false family dispute. The court recorded the prosecution submission that an FIR was registered and the petitioner was called only for investigation. It found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed finding no merit in plea that FIR justification precludes investigation.

R.Balamurugan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.34483 of 2019

¶6

R.Balamurugan ...Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District.
2. Buvaneshwari
Inspector of Police,
Ramanatham Police Station,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue a direction, directing
the 2nd respondent police not to harass the petitioner without
following the due process of law.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Velmurugan
For R1 : Mr.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER

¶9

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner without following the due process of law.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to family dispute, the petitioner's father Rajiv has lodged a false complaint against the petitioner herein and based on the said false complaint, the second respondent is harassing the petitioner.

¶11

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner's father has not lodged any complaint against the petitioner herein and on the contrary, the petitioner's wife has lodged a complaint against the

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

petitioner and based on the said complaint, F.I.R has been registered in Crime No.184/2019, under sections 294(b), 352, 354 and 506(ii) I.P.C and only for investigation purpose in that case the petitioner was called and he was not subjected to any harassment.

¶15

Since the F.I.R has been registered against the petitioner, this Court does not find any merit in this petition. The second respondent being an investigating officer shall be entitled to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Hence this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mfa
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Ramanatham Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.34483 of 2019
MR(CO)
CB(18/02/2020)

¶17

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

¶18

R.Balamurugan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Balamurugan 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

S.Mani Vs the Revenue Inspector

S.Parthasarathy Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Ravisasthiri Vs Inspector of Police

Thirupathi Vs the State Rep.by

G.Dhandapani Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Kannan Vs the Commissioner of Police