Disposed

N.Kanjamalai v. Sub Inspector

Madras HC21 Aug 2020WP/11312/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a writ of mandamus to restrain respondents from interfering with the petitioner's construction activities. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that no such interference occurred and the investigation was pending against other accused. The court concluded that the petition was devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was closed and no costs awarded; connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were also closed.

N.Kanjamalai Vs Sub Inspector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:21.08.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.No.11312 of 2020

¶6

and W.M.P.Nos.13789 & 13788 of 2020

¶7

1.N.Kanjamalai
2.Vasantha Ruban ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The Sub-Inspector,
Elevansurkuttai Police Station,
Elavansur,
Tamil Nadu – 607 2020.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram,
Collector Office Rd, Moovendar Nagar,
Villupuram, Tamil Nadu – 605 602.

¶8

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ulundurpet – 606 107. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to restrain the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's construction activities in the petitioner's property and consequently direct the respondents to take appropriate action based on the FIR bearing Crime No.42 of 2020 on the file of 3^rd respondent.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Deepak Narayanan

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

This petition has been filed for direction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's construction activities in his property and consequently direct the respondents to take appropriate action based on the FIR bearing Crime No.42 of 2020 on the file of 3^rd respondent.

¶13

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

¶14

2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner initially he issued CSR and subsequently he registered the case in Crime No.42 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 447 and 506 (1) of IPC as against two accused persons namely Desingu and one Kumar. The investigation is pending. In so far as the allegations as contended by the writ petitioners, there is absolutely no interference by respondent police on the construction put up by the petitioners herein. He further submitted that even till today no complaint is received as against the petitioners and as such the respondent police never interfered with the petitioner's construction in his property.

¶15

3.Recorded the said submission, the Writ Petition is closed.
No costs. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gbi
To
1.The Sub-Inspector,
Elevansurkuttai Police Station,
Elavansur,
Tamil Nadu – 607 2020.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram,
Collector Office Rd, Moovendar Nagar,
Villupuram, Tamil Nadu – 605 602.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Ulundurpet – 606 107.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶16

W.P.No.11312 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.13789 & 13788 of 2020

¶17

SSI(CO) RMP(03/09/2020)

¶18

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

N.Kanjamalai v. Sub Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Kanjamalai v. Sub Inspector

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.Raju Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ramachandran Vs The Inspector of Police

Vijay Vs The Inspector of Police

V.Dhavamani Vs the Superintendent of Police

Vineeth Vs the State Rep.by Its

Mahendhiran Vs Inspector of Police