L.Hepsipa v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.12.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Crl.O.P.No.28950 of 2015 L.Hepsipa ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police Tiruvallur District at Tiruvallur.

2. The Inspector of Police, T-8, Muthapudupettai Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the second respondent police, viz., The Inspector of Police, T.8, Mutha Pudupettai Police Station,Tiruvallur District to register a case based on the complaint given by her to the second respondent dated 27.11.2015.

For Petitioner : Mr.Nagaraj For respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl.Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent police, viz., The Inspector of Police, T.8, Mutha Pudupettai Police Station, Tiruvallur District, to register a case based on the complaint given by her to the second respondent dated 27.11.2015.

2. The petitioner is residing at No.62/49, Ambedkar Street, I.A.F. Road, Chennai - 600 055. When she was working in a company at Perambur, one Gavaskar moved with her as a friend. Subsequently, the petitioner left the job. Thereafter, the said Gavaskar contacted her over phone and expressed his intentin to marry her but the petitioner refused his proposal. Subsequently, the petitioner accepted his proposal. The said Gavaskar asked her to come to his house along with her parents. During August, 2015, the petitioner along with her family members went to the house of Gavaskar but his parents was not present. Only his maternal uncle and his wife came there and shouted at the petitioner and asked her to go out of the house. Then the petitioner avoided to talk with him. Thereafter, the said Gavaskar often abused https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

her and her family members with filthy language in the public and threatened her to marry him. Hence, the petitiner lodged a complaint on 27.11.2015. Since no action has been taken till dte, the present petition has been filed.

3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner as well as the counter petitioner had given a letter stating that they would solve the problem among themselves and based on their letter, the case was closed. But the learned counsel for the petitioner denies the same. He submitted that even after giving the said letter, again the said Gavaskar, started threatening her.

4. In my considered opinion, the complaint given by the petitioner was closed based on the letter given by the petitioner and the counter petitioner. Therefore, now this Court cannot give a positive direction as prayed for. Hence, the criminal original petition stands closed. However, if there is any continuous threat, the petitioner is at liberty to give a fresh complaint. vsi Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To

1. The Superintendent of Police Tiruvallur District at Tiruvallur.

2. The Inspector of Police, T-8 Muthapudupettai Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1 C.C. To MR.R.Nagaraj, Advocate in Sr.No.65665 Crl.O.P.No.28950 of 2015 NM(CO) sd : 22/12/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/