Madras High Court
TC/296/1998 of Vs on 25 November 2002
BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT %DATED: 06.03.2019 *CORAM THE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Relief
?BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT%DATED: 06.03.2019*CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE+Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3439 of 2019
#1.R.Samuel
2.S.Benin Sam : Petitioners
Vs.
$1.State represented byThe Superintendent of Police,Kanyakumari District,Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch,Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3.Muthumari : Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., todirect the respondent police not to harass the petitioners and their familyunder the guise of enquiry by the District Crime Branch, Nagercoil,Kanyakumari District without adhering to the mandatory provisionscontemplated under law.
!For Petitioners : Mr.KA.Ramakrishnan^For R~1 and R~2 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma PrabhuGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side):ORDERThe present petition is filed to direct the respondent police not toharass the petitioners and their family under the guise of enquiry by theDistrict Crime Branch, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District without adhering tothe mandatory provisions contemplated under law.
2.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learnedGovernment Advocate appearing for the respondent police.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis ofcertain complaint against the first petitioner-s son, the respondents 2 and 3harassing them.
4.The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioners havecheated the de~facto complainant on promise of securing him a job and that isbeing enquiry into.
5.In response, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted thatapart from the second petitioner, the first petitioner is having another son,who might have involved in the same. He also added that in the guise of enquiry, the petitioners are called to the police station and retained forhours together.
6.If the second and third respondents are interested in interrogation /enquiring the petitioners preliminarily on the complaint received by them,then the same shall be done only on summons in strict in accordance with lawand during the enquiry / interrogation the petitioners shall not be harassed.
7.Accordingly, the criminal original petition is closed.
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,Kanyakumari District,Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2. The Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch,Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3. The Government Advocate (Crl.Side),Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.