Dismissed

Siva v. The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC26 Mar 2021CRL OP(MD)/4655/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order passing a notice under Section 110 CrPC based on police allegations. The Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merits, holding that mere police allegations do not vitiate the magistrate's order.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition was dismissed as devoid of merits and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Siva Vs The Sub Divisional Executive… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.OP.(MD)No.4655 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.03.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

Crl.OP.(MD)No.4655 of 2021 &

¶7

Crl.MP(MD)No.2626 of 2021

Siva

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, Madurai District.

¶12

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Melur, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in the impugned order passed by the first respondent in MC.No.2545 of 2020, dated 09.03.2021 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The main grievance of the petitioner is that merely based on the contention of the Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station that the petitioner is a trouble-monger, the Executive Magistrate has issued notice under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on instructions, would contend that the Executive Magistrate had followed all the legal formalities before issuing notice under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is nothing wrong in the orders passed by the Executive Magistrate. Merely because the Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station has mentioned that the petitioner is a "trouble-monger" and no First Information Report is pending against the petitioner, the entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶18

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

¶19

1/2

¶20

Crl.OP.(MD)No.4655 of 2021

¶21

3.In the circumstances, this criminal original petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CRL SIDE)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

mbi

¶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 Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, Madurai District. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Melur, Madurai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶30

Crl.OP.(MD)No.4655 of 2021 & Crl.MP(MD)No.2626 of 2021 26.03.2021

¶31

PK(CO) TR(16.04.2021) 2P 4C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

Siva v. The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siva v. The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Jafar Sathick @ Jahabar Sathick Vs The Inspector of Police

Leela.a Vs the Commissioner of Police

P.Nesaraj Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

S.E.Ghose Mohamed Vs the Superintendent of Poice

D.Murugesan Vs The Inspector of Police

Sujatha Vs the Director General of Police