Disposed

Nehru v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC19 Feb 2021CRL OP(MD)/36/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioner sought a direction to the second respondent (Inspector of Police) not to harass him under the guise of an enquiry initiated by a complaint lodged by the third respondent. The court directed the second respondent to follow specific guidelines linked on the court's website

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to follow the guidelines issued on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Nehru Vs The Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.36 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.02.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.36 of 2021

Nehru

...Petitioner

/Vs./

1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, Musiri, Trichy District.

¶12

3.Sathasivam ...Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of an enquiry.

¶14

For Petitioner :No appearance

¶15

For Respondent Nos.1&2 :Mr.R.Erottuchamy Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present petition is filed seeking for a direction to the second respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of an enquiry.

¶18

Mr.R.Erottuchamy, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions would contend that the third respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner and the same was registered in CSR No.634 of 2020 and is posted for enquiry.

¶19

Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to follow the guidelines issued https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/2

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.36 of 2021

¶22

in the decision in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610 and Lalita kumari vs. Government of Uttarpradesh and Others reported in AIR 2014 SC 187.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar (AR-II)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

¶27

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶28

¶29

1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, Musiri, Trichy District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶30

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.36 of 2021 19.02.2021 SGS(CO) SRS (10/03/2021) 2P : 4C

¶31

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

¶32

2/2

Nehru v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nehru 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabiyattu Vs The Inspector of Police

Raja@Rajapandian Vs The Inspector of Police

Chellapandian Vs The Inspector of Police

G.Chelladurai Vs The Commissioner of Police

Selvakumar.N Vs the Commissioner of Police

Esakkimuthu Vs The Deputy Superintendent of POlice