Rg Stone Urology & Laparoscopy Hospital vs The Commissioner Of Police on 6 June, 2016

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Rg Stone Urology & Laparoscopy Hospital vs The Commissioner Of Police on 6 June, 2016

Bench: P.N.Prakash

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 06.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
CRL.OP.Nos.61, 75 and 76 of 2016
and CRL.MP.Nos.569 to 571 of 2016


RG Stone Urology & Laparoscopy Hospital
[A unit of RG Scientific Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.]
No.391/392, Anna Salai,
Opp. New Bus Stand, Saidapet,
Chennai-15.
Rep by its General Manager,
G.S.Venugopal	 			             ..	   Petitioner
						   in all Crl.OPs
Vs
1.The Commissioner of Police,
O/o.The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai-7.

2.The Inspector of Police,
J-1, Saidapet Police Station,
Chennai-15.			 ..     Respondents
						    in all Crl.OPs

Crl.OP.No.61 of 2016 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the management officials, doctors, staffs, workers of the petitioner's hospital. 
Crl.OP.No.75 of 2016 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents to provide adequate police protection for the safety, security and protection to the lives and property of the petitioner's hospital, management officials, staffs, workers and patients from the illegal acts of M.Murugan and his henchmen and supporters on the basis of the complaint dated 03.01.2016.
Crl.OP.No.76 of 2016 :  Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the 1st respondent to register the FIR dated 03.01.2016 for the series of offences committed by M.Murugan and his henchmen u/s 506[i], 268 to 274, 278, 336 of IPC and under various public health and safety laws and take action against the proposed accused in accordance with law.
	       	For Petitioner      :  Mr.R.Prabhakaran
	       	in all Crl.OPs
For Respondents  :  Mr.C.Emalias, APP 
	      	in all Crl.OPs

		For Intervenor     :  Mr.T.Karunakaran


		             C O M M O N   O R D E R

It is seen that this petitioner had lodged a complaint against its contractor Murugan, alleging that the said Murugan had threatened the petitioner.

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petition enquiry was conducted and closed in CSR.No.542 of 2015. A copy of the closure report is furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner represented that two civil suits are pending between the petitioner and the said Murugan.

4. Recording the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this petition is closed, with liberty to the petitioner, to work out its remedies in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

06.06.2016 gya To

1.The Commissioner of Police, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai-7.

2.The Inspector of Police, J-1, Saidapet Police Station, Chennai-15.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.N.PRAKASH, J.

gya CRL.OP.Nos.61, 75 and 76 of 2016 and CRL.MP.Nos.569 to 571 of 2016 06.06.2016

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court