Disposed

T.Thirunavukkarasu v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC22 Mar 2022CRL OP/6378/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Original Petition filed under Cr.P.C. 482 seeking police protection and an investigation into alleged threats was heard. The court directed the police to investigate the complaints regarding threats and disposed of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Inspector of Police to call upon the third respondent for an enquiry and take appropriate action on the complaint of threats by the petitioner.

T.Thirunavukkarasu Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.6378 OF 2022

¶6

T.Thirunavukkarasu, S/o.Thirumalai

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District,

¶10

Thiruvannamalai – 606 604.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Chengam Police Station, Chengam Taluk,

¶12

Thiruvannamalai District.

¶13

P.Sakthivel, S/o.Pandurangan

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., pleased to direct the second respondent herein to give police protection to the petitioner and his family members by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 16.09.2021 and 11.01.2022.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Magesh

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.V.Meganathan for R1 & R2 Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the second respondent, to give police protection to the petitioner and his family members by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 16.09.2021 and 11.01.2022.

¶20

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

¶21

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate would submit that based on the complaint given by the petitioner a case in Crime No.599 of 2018 was registered against the third respondent for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(i) of IPC. He would further submit that the second respondent has completed the investigation and a final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.

¶22

At this Juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent is still threatening the petitioner to withdraw the complaint.

¶23

In view of the above, a direction is issued to the second respondent to call upon the third respondent for an enquiry and take appropriate action based on the complaint given by the petitioner.

¶24

This Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

rgm/arb

¶30

¶31

The Superintendent of Police,

¶32

Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District,

¶33

Thiruvannamalai – 606 604.

¶34

The Inspector of Police,

¶35

Chengam Police Station,

¶36

Chengam Taluk,

¶37

Thiruvannamalai District.

¶38

The Public Prosecutor,

¶39

High Court of Madras.

¶40

+1cc to Mr.K.Magesh, Advocate, S.R.No.19229

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.6378 of 2022

¶42

BS(CO)

¶43

RLP(08/04/2022)

¶44

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

T.Thirunavukkarasu v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Thirunavukkarasu 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

Libra.v.Sanghrajka Vs Inspector of Police

FMR.21, Morappur Fishermen Co-Operative Society Rep by M.Buvaneswari Vs the Executive Engineer

Kathiroli Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

T. Deepika Vs State Rep by

Anthony Raj Vs the State Rep by

Sathyanaath Vs State