Madras High Court

TC/296/1998 of Vs on 25 November 2002

Cites 0, Cited by 0

BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT %DATED: 06.03.2019 *CORAM THE

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

?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.

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead