Disposed

M.Srinivasan v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC23 Mar 2021CRL OP(MD)/4455/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4455 of 2021 was a writ petition under Section 482 CrPC to restrain the second respondent (Inspector of Police) from harassing the petitioner. The court disposed of the petition by directing the Inspector to follow guidelines from D.K.Basu (1997) and Lalita Kumari (2014) regarding registration of FIRs.

What did the court decide?

The Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur Police Station is directed to follow the guidelines issued in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal and Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh.

M.Srinivasan Vs The Commissioner of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4455 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.03.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4455 of 2021

M.Srinivasan

...Petitioner

/Vs./

1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Alagarkoil Road, Madurai 625 002.

¶10

2.Mr.Parthiban The Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur Police Station, Madurai City.

¶11

3.Uma Maheswari ...Respondents

¶12

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 and also not to interfere in the civil dispute between him and the third respondent.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sukumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Robinson

¶14

Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the second respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of an enquiry.

¶17

2.Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), who accepts notice on behalf of the first respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, would contend that a complaint lodged by the third respondent with the second respondent against the present petitioner was registered in Crime No.173 of 2021 of Koodal Pudur Police Station and investigation is underway.

¶18

3.Recording the submission, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur Police Station, is directed to follow the guidelines issued in the decisions in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/2

¶20

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4455 of 2021

¶21

(1997) SC 610 and Lalita kumari vs. Government of Uttarpradesh and Others reported in AIR 2014 SC 187 .

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar ()

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 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.

¶27

¶28

1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Alagarkoil Road, Madurai 625 002.

¶29

2.The Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur Police Station, Madurai City.

¶30

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4455 of 2021 23.03.2021

¶32

NSM(CO)

¶33

KB(17.04.2021) 2P 4C

¶34

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

¶35

2/2

M.Srinivasan v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Srinivasan v. The Commissioner 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

Al.Karuppaiah Vs The Superintendent of Police

Pon.Murugesan Vs The Commissioner of Police

Apple @ Malayandi.C Vs the Superintendent of Police

Rajasekar Vs The Superintendent of police

Subramanian Vs The Inspector of Police

Subburaj Vs The Superintendent of Police