V. Vellaisamy Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Madurai District

V. Vellaisamy vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Madurai District

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Apr 06, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1191610

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1191610
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: P.N. Prakash
Decided On: Apr 06, 2016
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 5149 of 2016
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V. Vellaisamy

Respondent

State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Madurai District

Excerpt

(prayer: criminal original petition filed under section 482 of cr.p.c., praying to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry in connection with crime no.166 of 2015.) 1. this petition has been filed to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry in connection with crime no.166 of 2015. 2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for the state, who would submit that on the complaint given by one muniyandi, a case in crime no.166 of 2015 has been registered and investigation is in progress. 3. under such circumstances, once a regular fir has been registered, the question of 'not to harass' will not arise, because the expression 'harassment' is so subjective that it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criteria. if a 'not to harass order is passed in this case, where a regular fir has been registered, a notice by the investigating officer under section 41a can also be construed as an harassment. this court has dealt with this aspect at length and passed a detailed order in the case of dorand and others vs. the superintendent of police, nagercoil, kanyakumari district and another in crl.o.p.(md) no.1727 of 2016 decided on 01.02.2016. hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry in connection with Crime No.166 of 2015.)

1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry in connection with Crime No.166 of 2015.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint given by one Muniyandi, a case in Crime No.166 of 2015 has been registered and investigation is in progress.

3. Under such circumstances, once a regular FIR has been registered, the question of 'not to harass' will not arise, because the expression 'harassment' is so subjective that it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criteria. If a 'not to harass order is passed in this case, where a regular FIR has been registered, a notice by the Investigating Officer under Section 41A can also be construed as an harassment. This Court has dealt with this aspect at length and passed a detailed order in the case of Dorand and others vs. the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and another in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1727 of 2016 decided on 01.02.2016.

Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties V. Vellaisamy vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge P.N. Prakash