Bharathi Priyan v. The Commissioner Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.06.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH WP No.17333 of 2015 Bharathi Priyan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 003.

2.The Inspector of Police, W-35, All Women Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai-73.

3.The Inspector of Police, S-15, Selaiyur Police Station, Selaiyur, Chennai-73.

4.A.Bharathi .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to issue necessary direction to the third respondent to take appropriate action as against the 4th respondent for continuously threatening the petitioner by demoralizing and degrading his name, based on the petitioner's representation in the form of complaint made to the first respondent dated 15.04.2013. For Petitioner :Mr.K.Kannan For RR1 to 3 :Mr.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP.

ORDER

Seeking a direction to the first respondent to issue necessary direction to the third respondent to take appropriate action as against the 4th respondent for continuously threatening the petitioner by demoralizing and degrading his name, based on the petitioner's representation in the form of complaint made to the first respondent dated 15.04.2013, the petitioner has come up with this petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

3.It is seen that the family of this petitioner approached the family of the fourth respondent for marriage but the talks failed. Thereafter, the marriage proposal was abandoned. The petitioner got married to another lady and now he is living peacefully. Now it is alleged by the petitioner that the fourth respondent is unnecessarily causing trouble to him by giving false complaints. 4.Under such circumstances, the second and third respondents are directed to not to harass this petitioner unnecessarily unless the complaint given by the fourth respondent discloses the commission of cognizable offence in which event the Police should take appropriate action in accordance with the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC)] against this petitioner.

5.Hence, this writ Petition is closed with the above direction. dn s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 003.

2.The Inspector of Police, W-35, All Women Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai-73.

3.The Inspector of Police, S-15, Selaiyur Police Station, Selaiyur, Chennai-73.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+ 1 cc to Mr.K.kannan, Advocate SR 30492 sv(co) prk1/7 WP No.17333 of 2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/