Dismissed

S.Ravichandran, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC9 Sept 2022WP(MD)/10112/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court closed the current writ petition under Article 226 challenging a summons issued under CrPC Section 91. Recording the petitioner's instruction that they do not wish to prosecute the case, the petition stands closed along with connected miscellaneous petitions. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed with no costs awarded to any party.

S.Ravichandran, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.10112 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10112 of 2013 and M.P(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

S.Ravichandran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni.

¶11

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing (Special Cell), Theni District, Theni.

¶12

3.S.Ganeshan ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the summon relating in petition No.640/12 dated 10.06.2013 issued by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to forbear the second respondent from in anyway harassing the petitioner and his family members or threaten him and compel the petitioner to pay money to third respondent involving a civil dispute.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.Jesimayasmin For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottaichamy (For R1 & R2) Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶15

1/4

¶16

W.P(MD)No.10112 of 2013

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the summon issued by the second respondent herein under Section 91 of Cr.P.C directing him to appear before him along with the documents.

¶19

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions submitted that as of now, the petitioner do not like to prosecute the case.

¶20

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that though a community service register number was allotted to the complaint, later it was closed.

¶21

4.Recording the same, this writ petition stands closed. No costs.

¶22

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

¶23

09.09.2022

¶24

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsg

¶25

2/4

¶26

W.P(MD)No.10112 of 2013

¶27

¶28

1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni.

¶29

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing (Special Cell), Theni District, Theni.

¶30

3/4

¶31

W.P(MD)No.10112 of 2013

¶32

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶33

vsg

¶34

Order made in W.P(MD)No.10112 of 2013 and M.P(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶35

Dated: 09.09.2022

¶36

4/4

S.Ravichandran, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ravichandran, 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

Raveendran, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

A.Peer Mohamed, Vs the District Collector Cum

Janet Mary, Vs the Deputy Director

D.S. Rajeswar Vs Principal Secretary and -

M/S. P& C Constructions (P) Vs the Executive Engineer

The Public Information Officer Vs the Tamil Nadu State