← Library
Madras High CourtCONT P/1117/2016closed

Singanamala Ramesh Babu v. The State

2016-08-08Honourable Mr Justice R.Subbiah3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.08.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Contempt Petition No1117 of 2016 Singanamala Ramesh Babu .. Petitioner Vs.

The State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, R-1, Mambalam Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

.. Respondent Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.28635 of 2015.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kempraj For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan, Addl.P.P.

ORDER

This Court, while disposing the Crl.O.P.No.28635 of 2015, on 27.11.2015, has passed the following order_ "Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court directs the petitioner to give a fresh complaint to the respondent-Police, in person, along with a copy of this order within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent-Police is directed to enquire into the matter and if the materials are gathered indicating any cognizable offence,

he is directed to proceed further in accordance with law as early as possible. In the course of enquiry, if no prima facie is made out or the matter is civil in nature, he is directed to pass appropriate orders on the complaint made by the petitioner."

Now, the petitioner has filed the present Contempt petition alleging that the respondent-Police have not complied with the order passed by this Court.

2.When the contempt petition came up for hearing on 12.07.2016, it was represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that after conducting enquiry, the petitioner's complaint was closed on 25.01.2016. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that even without enquiring the petitioner, the complaint was closed, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the respondent-Police was prepared to conduct fresh enquiry at the Assistant Commissioner level. Hence, the matter was adjourned by two weeks. 3.Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar Range, T.Nagar, is present before this Court and he filed a status report. On instruction, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that after conducting enquiry, the complaint given by the petitioner was closed and as such, there is no disobedience of the

order of this Court, on the part of the respondent-Police. 4.Heard both sides. Since the complaint given by the petitioner was already closed, I do not find any wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent-Police. Hence, the Contempt Petition is ordered to be closed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the closure of his complaint, he is at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

ssv SD/ JOINT REGISTRAR(OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2016. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

CO/02/09/2016 Two CC to Mr.M.Kempraj, SR.8479/2016 & SR.9867 To

1. The the Inspector of Police, R-1, Mambalam Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.