Disposed

Chinnu v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC2 Jun 2021CRL OP(MD)/6358/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for police to stop harassment by the second respondent interfering with her business. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation following D.K. Basu principles and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Superintendent of Police to consider the petitioner's dated 15.04.2021representation following D.K. Basu principles.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6358 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.06.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AA.NAKKIRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6358 of 2021

¶7

Chinnu ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 2.State through

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station,

¶11

Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere the business of the petitioner's running in the name and style of “Chinnu Dhabashya Ayurvedic Fancy Goods Sales and Massage” situated at Door No.4/44-8, Block No.18, Queens Land, Convent Road, Kodaikanal District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.J.Chakkaravarthy For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam,

¶14

Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere the business of the petitioner.

¶17

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent is frequently visiting the petitioner's place and also interfering with her business. In this regard, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 15.04.2021 to the first respondent and the same was received by the first respondent on 16.04.2021. However, no action has been taken. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶18

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶19

4.Whatever might be the circumstances, the first respondent police is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.04.2021 by following the principles laid down by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/2

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6358 of 2021

¶22

Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610 .

¶23

5.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶24

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

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.

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

2.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6358 of 2021 02.06.2021

¶31

AS(11.06.2021)3P 4C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

Chinnu v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnu 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

A.Sanjeevi Gandhi Vs The Superintendent of Police

Prabu @ Prabakaran Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

G.Manoharan Vs The Superintendent of Police

P.Rajendran Vs R.M.K.R.Durairaj (Died)

Murugan.K Vs the City Commissioner of Police

S.Pannerselvam Vs The Superintendent of Police