Dismissed

M.Krishnakumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC17 Jun 2022CRL OP/1713/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a Criminal Original Petition filed to restrain the Second Respondent police from harassing the Petitioner. Holding that harassment cannot be objectively defined and a complainant must cooperate with a pending inquiry, the Court dismissed the prayer while ordering the Police to issue a notice for the Petitioner's appearance.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for a direction to restrain the Second Respondent police is rejected. Police served to issue a notice for the petitioner's appearance.

M.Krishnakumar Vs State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.1713 OF 2022

M.Krishnakumar

... Petitioner

State represented by

The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur District.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the second respondent police not to harass the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Murugan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.N.Muthuvel, Government Advocate (crl.side)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent police not to harass the petitioner.

¶18

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) for the respondent police.

¶19

The term harassment is so subjective which cannot be encapsulated in objective criterion. The petitioner having given a complaint is bound to cooperate with the Police for enquiry. Admittedly, the enquiry is pending. Without

¶20

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

¶21

cooperating with the Police, they cannot seek such a blanket direction.

¶22

In such a view of the matter, the prayer sought for by the petitioner is rejected. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. The Police shall issue notice, within two weeks, from today, for causing the appearance of the petitioner, for enquiry and after enquiring the petitioner, the Police may either register a complaint, if any cognizable offence is made out or close the complaint.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

shk/mvs

¶28

¶29

The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District.

¶30

The Inspector of Police,

¶31

District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur District.

¶32

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.1713 of 2022

¶34

PL(CO)

¶35

RLP(29/06/2022)

¶36

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

M.Krishnakumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Krishnakumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Sujay Senthil, Vs M/s.Coromandel Engineering Company Ltd.

Shanmugavel @ Raji Vs the State Rep by

Siva Kumar Vs State Rep by

M.Manikandan Vs Commissioner of Police

Manoharan Vs State Rep by

Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police