Disposed

V.Teenu v. The district Superintendent of Police

Madras HC15 Jun 2022WP/11789/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought direction to transfer his complaint from the Women Police Station to the Cyber Crimes unit. The Court, noting the petitioner's lack of cooperation, directed him to appear before the Women Police Station; if required, the matter could be forwarded to the Cyber Crime unit.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent; the matter may be forwarded to the 3rd respondent if investigation by cyber crime is deemed necessary.

V.Teenu Vs The district Superintendent of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

W.P.No.11789 of 2022

V.Teenu

... Petitioner

Versus

1.The District Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tirupattur, Tirupathur District.

¶10

2.All Women Police Station, Represented by the Inspector Ambur, Thirupathur District.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crimes, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of the Writ directing the 1^st respondent to transfer the complaint of the petitioner dated 4.4.2022 from the file of the 2^nd respondent to the file of the 3^rd respondent for registration of the case, for investigation and filing final report.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 1 st respondent to transfer the complaint of the petitioner, dated 04.04.2022 from the file of the 2 nd respondent to the file of the 3rd respondent for registration of the case and for investigation and filing final report.

¶17

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

¶18

2. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents on instructions submitted that after lodging the complaint, the petitioner not cooperated for enquiry.

¶19

3.In such view of the matter, the petitioner is directed

¶20

to appear before the 2^nd respondent Police and make his submissions. If the 2^nd respondent Police finds that the complaint of the petitioner is required to be investigated by the cyber crime, the same to be forwarded to the 3^rd respondent Police.

¶21

4.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with

¶22

the above direction. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶25

//True copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

vv2

¶28

¶29

1.The District Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tirupattur, Tirupathur District.

¶30

2.All Women Police Station, Represented by the Inspector Ambur, Thirupathur District.

¶31

3.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crimes, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur District.

¶32

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.K.Selvaraj, Advocate SR.No.35414

W.P.No.11789 of 2022

SR(CO)

GMY(04/07/2022)

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

V.Teenu v. The district Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Teenu v. The district Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaburammal Vs Inspector of Police

G.Malika Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Dorai Vs Commissioner of Police

P.Villingiri Vs State Rep by

P.Geethajali Vs State Rep by

V.Sathya Vs the Commissioner of Police