High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 01 MAD CK 0570

Periyasamy vs The Superintendant of Police

Madras High Court · Decided on 3 January 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Rajamanickam
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
15830 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 384 words
1.

This petition has been filed by the de-facto complainant to direct the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to take appropriate action to impound the passport

of the fourth respondent till the disposal of the case in C.C.No.61 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur

District.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on 29.09.2013 at about 4.00 p.m., the fourth respondent and his father attacked

the petitioner with deadly weapons and caused grievous injuries to him. He further submitted that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, a

case was registered in Crime No.117 of 2013 by the second respondent and after investigation, a charge sheet has been filed for the offences

under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) of IPC. He further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai has taken a case on file in

C.C.No. 61 of 2014 and the same is still pending. He further submitted that in order to protract the criminal case, the fourth respondent is trying to

go abroad and hence, the petitioner has sent a representation to the third respondent to impound the passport of the fourth respondent, but, the

third respondent has not taken any steps to impound the passport.

3.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has not raised any objection.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has submitted that unless the particulars such as father''s name and the Date of Birth of

the passport holder is furnished, it is not possible to impound the passport. He further submitted that if those particulars are furnished, the third

respondent is ready to impound the passport of the fourth respondent.

5.

Though the notice has been served on the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent not appeared.

6.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following directions:-

The petitioner is directed to furnish the required particulars to the third respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order and thereafter, the third respondent is directed to take appropriate action for impounding the passport of the fourth respondent

within a period three weeks.

7.

With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.