Petitioner sought high court direction for no police harassment alleging false cases. Court found petitioner a history sheet rowdy with multiple past cases and noted police visits for enquiry were not harassment, dismissing petition.
Petition for direction against police harassment dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.19548 of 2021
P.Sathishkumar
S/o.Late Ponnusamy
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Police Linemedu, Salem2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police South Circle, Salem Town, Salem-13.The Inspector of Police
Annadhanapatti Police Station
Annadhanapatti
Salem – 636 002 ...Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue a suitable direction to
the respondent police not to harass the petitioner in the guise
of registering false case under the Provisions of I.P.C offence.
For Petitioner :Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondent :Mr.R.Vinothraja
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
(This case has been heard through video conference)
This petition has been filed seeking for a direction, to
direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioner in the
guise of registering false case under the Provisions of I.P.C
offence.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is running a travels business and two years back he
was falsely implicated in a criminal case by the 3rd respondent
as if he was selling lottery ticket, for which, the petitioner
has been termed as a habitual offender and his name is listed in
the history sheeter rowdy, using the same, the respondent police
frequently called the petitioner during night hours and he was
unnecessarily harassed by the respondent police. Hence the
petition.
3.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) produced a list
of cases involved by the petitioner from the year 2012. He
would submit that the petitioner has been continuously indulged
himself in the similar type of offence and there are 14 previous
cases registered and disposed of against him from the year 2012
to 2019. Now the petitioner has involved in Crime No.79 of
2020, Crime No.247 of 2021, Crime No.249 of 2021 and Crime
No.691 of 2021. The petitioner has been listed in the history
sheeter rowdy in H.S.No.832 of 2020 and his movement is being
watched and he was also called by the respondent police for the
purpose of enquiry. The petitioner being the history sheeter
cannot term this as an harassment.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and perused the
materials placed on record.
5.In view of the submissions made by the learned
Government Advocate, it is seen that the petitioner has been
called for enquiry and the respondent police had to visit his
place for conducting enquiry, which is not amount to any
harassment, hence this Court is not inclined to allow this
petition.
6.This Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed
accordingly.
Assistant Registrar
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
kas / jeni
To
1.The Commissioner of Police Linemedu, Salem2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police South Circle, Salem Town, Salem-13.The Inspector of Police Annadhanapatti Police Station Annadhanapatti Salem – 636 002.4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.19548 of 2021
KSM(CO)
RVM(02/11/2021)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the police enquiry in a case involving a history sheet rowdy amounts to harassment justifying direction under Section 482 CrPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Sathishkumar
Commissioner of Police Linemedu, Salem
Assistant Commissioner of Police South Circle, Salem Town, Salem-1
Inspector of Police Annadhanapatti Police Station, Salem
M.Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court