Disposed

Pandeeswari. v. Vs The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC19 Feb 2021WP(MD)/551/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking direction to block a fake Instagram account and take action on a complaint. Petitioner counsel stated the respondent authorities had already blocked the fake account based on the complaint. The court disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of. First Information Report to be proceeded. No costs awarded.

Pandeeswari. v Vs The Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

WP(MD)No.551 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

WP(MD)No.551 of 2021

¶7

V.Pandeeswari ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to take action on the petitioner's complaint dated 09.11.2020 and block the fake instagram account functioning in the name of “amitha_jaya”.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.A.Robinson Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Mr.R.J.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the fake I.D. created in the name of the petitioner's daughter, is blocked by the official respondents.

¶15

2.Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. The First Information Report registered in Crime No.3 of 2021, shall be proceeded by the concerned Inspector of Police.

¶16

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶17

// True Copy //

¶18

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶19

sji

¶20

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

¶21

1/2

¶22

WP(MD)No.551 of 2021

¶23

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.

¶24

To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.R.J KARTHIK, Advocate ( SR-6555[F] dated 22/02/2021 )

¶25

WP(MD)No.551 of 2021 19.02.2021

¶26

NA(CO) TR(11.03.2021) 2P 5C

¶27

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

¶28

2/2

Pandeeswari. v. Vs The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandeeswari. v. Vs 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

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

Nehru Vs The Superintendent of Police