Disposed

V. Subramanian v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC10 Feb 2020WP(MD)/2552/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the petitioner to cooperate with police enquiry into a criminal complaint while ensuring no harassment occurs without an FIR registration, referencing Supreme Court guidelines on preliminary enquiries.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to cooperate with police enquiry without harassment; no FIR registration required for preliminary enquiries.

V. Subramanian Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2552 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.02.2020

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2552 of 2020

V.Subramanian

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Police Station, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 3^rd respondent not to interfere with the civil dispute with regard to the land to an extent of 6 cents and a house property of the above said land situated at Survey No. 202/3A1 in Keelaneelithanallur Vilalge, Sankarankovil Taluk, which is the scheduled mentioned property in O.S.No.170 of 2016 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil without any legally sustainable complaint and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to follow the guidelines issued by the Honble Supreme Court in D.K.Basu 1997 1 SCC.P.416 case in matters pertaining to arrest or interrogation.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Baskara Mathram for M/s.Muthuram Law Associates For Respondents : Mrs.S.Bharathi Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 3^rd respondent not to interfere with the civil dispute with regard to the land to an extent of 6 cents and a house property of the above said land situated at Survey No. 202/3A1 in Keelaneelithanallur Vilalge, Sankarankovil Taluk, which is the scheduled mentioned property in O.S.No.170 of 2016 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil without any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ legally sustainable complaint and consequently direct the 2^nd

¶17

1/3

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.2552 of 2020

¶19

respondent to follow the guidelines issued by the Honble Supreme Court in D.K.Basu 1997 1 SCC.P.416 case in matters pertaining to arrest or interrogation.

¶20

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondents.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the rival parties and the respondent police are interefering and thereby, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents on 05.07.2019. Since the third respondent is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the above said relief.

¶22

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that based on a complaint given by one Velusamy, enquiry has been conducted in C.S.R.No.151 of 2019 by the third respondent police station. She further submitted that they are conducting the enquiry in accordance with law and that they are not harassing the petitioner.

¶23

5.The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the police for enquiry and at the time of conducting of the enquiry, the petitioner shall not be harassed by the police. The police cannot call the petitioner on a regular basis in the guise of enquiry without even registering an FIR and Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353 has enumerated the nature of cases where preliminary enquiry can be conducted and has also restricted the period, for which preliminary enquiry can be conducted. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the concerned Inspector of Police is free to register an FIR and this order shall not be a shield for the petitioner against the third respondent proceeding to take action in accordance with law.

¶24

6.With the above observations, this writ petition stands closed. No costs.

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

sji

¶28

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

¶29

2/3

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.2552 of 2020

¶31

¶32

1.The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶33

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶34

3.The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.MATHURAM LAW ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-5471[F] dated 10/02/2020 )

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.2552 of 2020 10.02.2020

¶37

AVS(CO) TR(03.03.2020) 3P 5C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

V. Subramanian v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Subramanian 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shino @ Iruthaya Anto Shino Vs The Inspector of Police

M. Mahin Vs The Director General of Police

Mohamed Madarsha Vs The Inspector of Police

Meharnisha Vs Senthamarai

Govindaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Veeraputheeran Vs The State of Tamilnadu