Dismissed

S.Jeyarani v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC25 Apr 2022CRL OP(MD)/16726/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Single Judge order of the Madras High Court, the petitioner filed a criminal original petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking police protection for agricultural activities. The court dismissed the petition based on the Additional Public Prosecutor's submission that the police had already conducted an enquiry and closed the complaint.

What did the court decide?

None granted; prayer for police protection dismissed as enquiry by respondents was already closed.

S.Jeyarani Vs The Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16726 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.04.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16726 of 2021

¶7

S.Jeyarani ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli District, Subramaniyapuram,

¶10

Trichy - 620 026.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Navalpattu Police Station, Trichy - 620 026.

¶12

G.Jaya

¶13

M.Malarkodi

¶14

K.Indrani

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to do her agricultural activities, whose right has been safeguarded vide order, dated 30.03.2021 in I.A.No.1/2021 in O.S.No.165/2021, passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 to R5 : Mr.K.Sivabalan

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to do her agricultural activities, whose right had been safeguarded vide order, dated 30.03.2021 in I.A.No.1/2021 in O.S.No.165/2021, passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

¶20

2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police stated that based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the respondent police had conducted enquiry and closed the same on 21.04.2021. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

1/2

¶22

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16726 of 2021

¶23

3.Recording the said submission, the criminal original petition stands dismissed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (AD-II)

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) lr

¶28

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.

¶29

To 1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli District, Subramaniyapuram, Trichy - 620 026. 3. The Inspector of Police, Navalpattu Police Station, Trichy - 620 026. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16726 of 2021 25.04.2022

¶30

USK/26.05.2022/2P/5C

¶31

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

¶32

2/2

S.Jeyarani v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jeyarani 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

S.Rajeswari, Vs Shankar Kannan

Venkatesan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Viswanth Vs The Inspector of Police

S. Ettamma Naicker Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police

A.Sankaran Vs The Inspector of Police

S. Ebistanly Vs The Commissioner of Police