Disposed

H.Sheemah v. The Commissioner

Madras HC15 Jun 2023CRL OP(MD)/248/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court examined a criminal petition seeking police protection for the petitioner alleging threats from in-laws over a property dispute. Finding the threat claim unproven, the Court directed the police to conduct an inquiry within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to issue summons to petitioner and respondents for enquiry and complete enquiry within 15 days.

H.Sheemah Vs The Commissioner — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.248 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.248 of 2023

H.Sheemah

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Office of Commissioner, Trichy District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Thillainagar Police Station, Thillainagar, Trichy District.

¶12

A.Rasithkhan

¶13

R.Mehar Banu

¶14

R.Kamila

¶15

R.Harshithkhan ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to direct the 1^st respondent to direct 2^nd respondent to give necessary Police Protection to the Petitioner and her children for their life and limbs by considering her representation dated 21.11.2022,within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/5

¶19

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.248 of 2023

¶20

For petitioner : Mr.Haja Mohideen A For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶21

O RDER

¶22

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to direct the 1^st respondent to direct 2^nd respondent to give necessary Police Protection to the Petitioner and her children for their life and limbs by considering her representation dated 21.11.2022, within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has married one Hemaiyun Kabeer, who is the son of third and fourth respondents. The husband of the petitioner died and after that now the petitioner is living in her parental home. When the husband of the petitioner was working in Singapore, earned money, property was purchased out of the money sent by him in the name of third respondent. But however, the house was constructed by the husband of the petitioner with his money. Now the above said property is let out and the third repsondent is receiving the rent.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/5

¶26

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.248 of 2023

¶27

But how far the above said factual aspects submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner indicate the life threat at the hands of the private respondents is not known.

¶28

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that

¶29

the representation that was made by the petitioner is still kept pending.

¶30

It appears that it is the issue between the daughter-in-law and in-

¶31

laws over some properties as well as the money sent by the petitioner and her husband. Now giving color as life threat has been made by the private respondents, the above said representation has been given by the petitioner.

¶32

The second respondent is directed to issue summon to the petitioner as well as the private respondents to appear for enquiry and is further directed to complete the above said enquiry within a period of fifteen days from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/5

¶35

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.248 of 2023

¶36

With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands

¶37

disposed of.

¶38

15.06.2023

¶39

NCC:Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

¶40

Indu

¶41

¶42

The Commissioner, Office of Commissioner, Trichy District.

¶43

The Inspector of Police, Thillainagar Police Station, Thillainagar, Trichy District.

¶44

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

4/5

¶47

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.248 of 2023

¶48

G.ILANGOVAN. J.

¶49

Indu

¶50

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.248 of 2023

¶51

15.06.2023

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

5/5

H.Sheemah v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Sheemah v. The Commissioner

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

Veerapandiyan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Mohamed Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Usha Vijayakumar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Shehu Umar Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Suresh Vs The Commissioner of Police

Ramachandran Vs The Inspector of Police