Dismissed

S. Kamaruddin v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC1 Oct 2021CRL OP/17714/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petition seeking a direction not to harass the petitioner via police enquiry. It held that calling the party for enquiry is part of investigation and not harassment, directing the petitioner to appear on 07.10.2021.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before respondent police on 07.10.2021; failure to cooperate subjects him to coercive action.

S. Kamaruddin Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.17714 OF 2021

¶6

S.Kamaruddin, S/o. Syed Mohammed

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, District Superintendent of Police Office, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur Dt.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponneri, Tiruvallur. (Crime no. not known)

¶11

Mrs. Baseera Gani, D/o. Mohamed Mohideen ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 2^nd respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, in pursuance of the complaint dated not known of 2021 given before the 2^nd respondent by the 3^rd respondent.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(This case has been heard through video conference)

¶15

This petition has been filed seeking not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry in pursuance of the complaint dated not known of 2021.

¶16

The petitioner and the 3^rd respondent are husband and wife and now, their relationship got strained. On the complaint of 3^rd respondent, the petitioner is called for enquiry.

¶17

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

¶18

In view of the same, this Court finds that enquiring the petitioner, part of the investigation, it would not amount to harassment and hence, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police on 07.10.2021 and in the event of not cooperating with the enquiry, the respondent police is directed to proceed in accordance with law by taking coercive action. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

rpp/nr

¶24

¶25

The Superintendent of Police, District Superintendent of Police Office,

¶26

Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur Dt.

¶27

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponneri, Tiruvallur.

¶28

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶29

CRL.O.P.No.17714 of 2021

¶30

PL(CO) PM/11/10/2021

¶31

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

S. Kamaruddin v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Kamaruddin 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

Venkatesh Sang Sani Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Selvam Vs the State Rep.by

J.Devika Vs Commissioner of Police

S.P.Moorthy Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohamed Shahid Vs Superintendent of Police

R.Krishnamoorthy Vs the State Rep by