Dismissed

M.K.Sakunthala, (61) v. State Rep. by

Madras HC8 Dec 2021CRL OP/28289/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the police to install CCTV cameras in her apartment's common area and parking space. The court dismissed the petition, holding that a blanket direction cannot be given to install cameras in common areas without resident permission as it intrudes into privacy, especially when the police inquires were closed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition dismissed as blanket direction to police cannot intrude privacy without resident permission.

M.K.Sakunthala, (61) Vs State Rep. by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.12.2021

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶4

CRL.O.P.NO.28289 OF 2017

¶5

M.K.Sakunthala ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Rep. by

¶8

The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore-18.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, C1, Kattur Police Station, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore District.

¶10

Periyasamy ... Respondents

¶11

(R3 is impleaded on for the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 17/01/2018 made in Crl.M.P.No.16537 of 2017 in Crl.O.P.No.28289 of 2017)

¶12

PRAYER:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the 2^nd respondent to give protection to the petitioner herein to fix CCTV Camers in front of her apartment bearing Door.No.302, Sri Vasta Siva Apartment, 100 feet road, Coimbatore-641012 and to her exclusive car parking area on the basis of the representation dated 01.11.2017 sent by her through R.P.A.D. to the first respondent who in turn forwarded the same to the second respondent.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Saravanan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R1 and R2

¶15

No Appearance for R3

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 2^nd respondent to give protection to the petitioner herein to fix CCTV Cameras in front of her apartment bearing Door.No.302, Sri Vasta Siva Apartment, 100 feet road, Coimbatore-641012 and to her exclusive car parking area on the basis of the representation dated 01.11.2017 sent by her through R.P.A.D. to the first respondent who in turn forwarded the same to the second respondent.

¶19

The contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 is that the police has already enquired the petition and closed the petition. On perusal of the entire allegations in the complaint available on record, it indicates that the petitioner has some grievance with the neighbours, who are residing in the apartments and she wants to fix a camera in the common area without taking the permission of the person in-charge of the apartments. In such view of the matter, a blanket direction cannot be given to the police to give protection to the petitioner to fix the camera by intruding the privacy of others. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any blanket direction.

¶20

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

psa/asr

¶26

¶27

The Commissioner of Police,

¶28

Coimbatore City,

¶29

Office of the Commissioner of Police,

¶30

Coimbatore - 18.

¶31

The Inspector of Police,

¶32

C1, Kattur Police Station,

¶33

Gandhipuram,

¶34

Coimbatore District.

¶35

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

¶36

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶37

CRL.O.P.NO.28289 OF 2017

¶38

SJ(CO) PBS/19/01/2022

¶39

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

M.K.Sakunthala, (61) v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Sakunthala, (61) v. State Rep. by

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

V.Kanakaraj, I.a.S, (Retd.), Vs State Rep. by

Sumathi K. Prashath (A3) Vs v. Palanisamy (Deceased) Rep.

Anuragha Poultries and Vs S.K.Bala Vasanthakumar

Sree Balaji Spinning Mills Vs M/S.Reliance Capital Ltd.

Mrs.Kanaga @ Kanagasihamani, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Chandersekaran Vs the State Represented by