Disposed

K.Viji v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC8 Dec 2021CRL OP(MD)/4847/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Judicial Magistrate to instruct the Superintendent of Police to execute a non-bailable warrant against a third respondent in a maintenance case, emphasising urgency despite the first respondent not having been served with a copy.

What did the court decide?

Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai directed to instruct the Superintendent of Police to execute the non-bailable warrant against the third respondent without delay.

K.Viji Vs The Superintendent of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4847 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.12.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 4847 of 2021

¶5

1.K.Viji

¶6

2.Minor.K.Sundaravathani

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

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

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukottai District.

¶11

3.R.Kulanthaivel

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent to execute the non bailable warrant issued against the third respondent in Crl.M.P.No.2904 of 2018 in M.C.No.8 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai on 31.05.2019.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.D.R.Murugesan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl Side) for R1 & R2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondents 1 and 2. The petitioners have obtained an order in their favour in M.C.No.8 of 2005 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they filed Cr.M.P.No.2904 of 2018 for enforcing the maintenance order and nonbailable warrant was also issued, till date, the second respondent has not executed the same and as a result, the third respondent has not honoured his obligations.

¶18

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the second respondent has not been served with any copy of the non-bailable warrant. In these https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/2

¶20

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4847 of 2021

¶21

circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, is directed to instruct the second respondent herein to execute the non-bailable warrant against the third respondent without any delay and as expeditiously as possible. With this direction to the jurisdictional Court, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

mga

¶24

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.

¶25

¶26

1.Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai.

¶27

2.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District. Pudukottai.

¶28

3.The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukottai District.

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4847 of 2021 08.12.2021

¶31

RD(27.12.2021) 2P 5C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

K.Viji v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Viji 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karthick Vs The Inspector of Police

N.Sahul Hameed Vs The Inspector of Police

Yuvaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Imrankhan Vs The Inspector of Police

Veerasamy Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Selvaraj Vs The Inspector of Police