Disposed

Subbaiah @ Arivu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC26 Sept 2024CRL OP(MD)/16229/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition invoked Section 528 BNSS to stop harassment by Respondent 4 without legal inquiry. The court directed Respondent 3 to issue written summonses, conclude the enquiry within two weeks, and provide notice before registering an FIR to allow the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of written summons, conclusion of enquiry within two weeks, and notice of FIR registration before registration.

Subbaiah @ Arivu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16229 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 26.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16229 of 2024

¶7

Subbaiah @ Arivu ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

¶10

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Natham Town, Dindigul District.

¶12

4.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Natham Town, Dindigul District.

¶13

5.Perumal ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner and his family members by the fourth respondent without any legally sustainable inquiry and without issuance any summon or proceedings.

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16229 of 2024

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ananthi For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R4.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 528 B.N.S.S., seeking orders to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner and his family members by the fourth respondent without any legally sustainable inquiry and without issuance any summon or proceedings.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the fifth respondent CSR.No.875 of 2024 came to be registered and enquiry is pending; that subsequently, the petitioner has given a complaint and

¶23

the same is pending in current paper and that though the petitioner was

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16229 of 2024

¶27

directed to appear for enquiry before the third respondent, he has not turned up.

¶28

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to appear before the third respondent on receipt of summons.

¶29

Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, the following directions are issued:-

¶30

“ (a) The third respondent will issue written summons to the petitioner and to the private respondents for causing their appearance before him for enquiry. There is no question of orally summoning the parties to the police station.

¶31

(b) The third respondent will conclude the enquiry within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

(c) If at the end of the enquiry, cognizable offence is made out and the third respondent proposes to register any FIR, the petitioner will be given notice of the same so that

¶33

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16229 of 2024

¶35

the petitioner will have breathing time to move the concerned Court for the relief of anticipatory bail.”

¶36

6. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands

¶37

disposed of.

¶38

26.09.2024

¶39

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No das To

¶40

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

¶41

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

¶42

3.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Natham Town, Dindigul District.

¶43

4.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Natham Town, Dindigul District.

¶44

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

¶45

4/5

¶46

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

¶47

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16229 of 2024

¶48

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶49

das

¶50

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16229 of 2024

¶51

Dated: 26.09.2024

¶52

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Subbaiah @ Arivu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subbaiah @ Arivu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

P.Subramanian Vs The Superintendent of Police

C.Mohan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Theyvendran Vs The Superintendent of Police

Thangamani Vs The District Superintendent of Police

K.Murugan Vs M.Senthil Kumar

Lurthu Seviyar @ Lurthu Xavier Vs The State of Tamilnadu