V.S. Baskaran, v. The Director General Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.03.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.Nos.3207 and 3208 of 2016 V.S.Baskaran ... Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps.
Vs.
1. The Director General of Police No.4, Police Head Quarters, Chennai - 4.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 7.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambattur, Chennai - 53.
4. The Inspector of Police, T-3 Koratur Police Station, Koratur, Chennai - 80.
... Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.3207 of 2016 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to issue direction to the respondent to register the case on the complaint dated 04.02.2016.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.3208 of 2016 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to issue direction to the respondents to provide protection to the petitioner based on the complaint dated 04.02.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Ilangovan For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioner has come forward with the petition in Crl.O.P.No.3207 of 2016 seeking a direction to the respondent to register a case on the basis of the complaint dated 04.02.2016 and the petition in Crl.O.P.No.3208 of 2016 seeking a direction
to the respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner based on the complaint dated 04.02.2016.
2.Heard both sides.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has given a complaint before the respondent police and sought for police protection and also for taking action against the police official who has assaulted the petitioner's son Balaji and one Suresh who has intended to purchase his land and also abused him. But without taking any action, case has been registered against the petitioner's son and they have also beaten him. Hence, the petitioner has given complaint and also sought for police protection. But the respondent police has neither registered a case nor provided police protection. Hence, the petitioner came forward with the petitions for the above stated relief.
4.Resisting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner's son Balaji is the root cause for all these things. On the complaint given by one Suresh, he has received 100 phone calls from the petitioner's son Balaji. Then police registered a case in Crime No.1086 of 2015 under Section 75 of the City Police Act. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed in S.T.C.No.348 of 2015 in which he pleaded guilty and paid a fine of Rs.1,000/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur. He further submitted that on the basis of the earlier complaint given by the petitioner, C.S.R.No.522 of 2015 was given, enquiry was conducted and it was closed on 19.11.2015. Again the complaint is given by the petitioner on 04.02.2016. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petitions.
5.Considering the submissions made by both side and on a perusal of record shows that with a view to help his son Balaji, the present complaint has been given by the petitioner/ father of Balaji. Hence, I do not find any reason to give any direction and these petitions deserve to be dismissed and both the petitions are hereby dismissed.
6.Even though the earlier complaint is closed, it is represented that the petitioner is not furnished with closure report. Post on 04.04.2016 for furnishing closure report. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pri
To
1. The Director General of Police No.4, Police Head Quarters, Chennai - 4.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 7.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambattur, Chennai - 53.
4. The Inspector of Police, T-3 Koratur Police Station, Koratur, Chennai - 80.
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.Nos.3207 and 3208 of 2016 MP(CO) CA(10/05/2016)