← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/21120/2022disposed of

N.Subramanian v. The Inspector General Of Police

2022-11-30Honourable Mr Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.11.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP CRL.O.P (MD) No.21120 of 2022 N.Subramanian

...Petitioner

vs

1. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

2. The Superintendent of Police Sivagangai District Sivagangai.

3. The Assistant Superintendent of Police Karaikudi Sub Division Karaikudi.

4. The Inspector of Police Karaikudi North Police Station, Karaikudi.

5. C.Rajakumar, The Inspector of Police Karaikudi North Police Station, Karaikudi.

...Respondents

1/5

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to direct the Respondents 4 and 5 not to harass the Petitioner in the guise of enquiry.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan For R1 to R4 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to direct the Respondents 4 and 5 to not to harass the Petitioner in the guise of enquiry.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is aged about 74 years. He would further submit that the Petitioner had forwarded certain messages. The Petitioner was summoned to the police station. At that time the defacto Complainant who claims to be an Advocate came along with 15 members and in the presence of the police officials abused the Petitioner who is aged about 74 years. Further the Petitioner was forced to file this petition. The Petitioner was asked to wait in the station till the defacto complainant come to the station, thereby detaining him till evening ignoring the age of the Petitioner and age related medical condition.

2/5

3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the case was transferred to the file of the cyber crime.

4. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) on instructions from the Respondent police, the Respondents 1 to 5 are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353 regarding enquiry. Considering the age of the Petitioner he shall not be summoned very often and at odd hours. The Petitioner is directed to cooperate with the pending enquiry if any with the Cyber Crime .

5. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

30.11.2022 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/no aav 3/5

To

1. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

2. The Superintendent of Police Sivagangai District Sivagangai.

3. The Assistant Superintendent of Police Karaikudi Sub Division Karaikudi.

4. The Inspector of Police Karaikudi North Police Station, Karaikudi.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP , J.

aav CRL.O.P (MD) No.21120 of 2022 30.11.2022 5/5