Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini vs K. Natarajan on 6 August, 2021

T.J.Subija vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 March, 2023

24.In a judgement reported in 2019 (1) CTC 385 (Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini Vs. K.Natrajan, Inspector of Police), a learned Single Judge was pleased to award compensation for the infringement of personal liberty and reputation of a victim who was erroneously implicated under the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956. In the present case, the writ petitioner has been falsely implicated under the provisions of Immoral https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/21 W.P(MD).No.2584 of 2016 Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 and she was arrested and remanded at 9.30 p.m. She was detained in a detention home for a period of 13 days. Later in an enquiry conducted by a higher police official, it was found that a false case has been lodged against her and based upon the report, this Court quashed the charge sheet.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R Vijayakumar - Full Document

T.J.Subija vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 March, 2023

24.In a judgement reported in 2019 (1) CTC 385 (Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini Vs. K.Natrajan, Inspector of Police), a learned Single Judge was pleased to award compensation for the infringement of personal liberty and reputation of a victim who was erroneously implicated under the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956. In the present case, the writ petitioner has been falsely implicated under the provisions of Immoral https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/21 W.P(MD).No.2584 of 2016 Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 and she was arrested and remanded at 9.30 p.m. She was detained in a detention home for a period of 13 days. Later in an enquiry conducted by a higher police official, it was found that a false case has been lodged against her and based upon the report, this Court quashed the charge sheet.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - R Vijayakumar - Full Document

Balakrishnan vs The Inspector Of Police on 10 February, 2022

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he did not involve in any crime as alleged by the second respondent. None of the mandatory provisions under the Act has been followed while searching the premises and the case has been registered against the settled principles of law. Therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated and a clear abuse https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19219 of 2021 of process of law. He would further submit that the first respondent is not the authorised officer to conduct the investigation as contemplated under Section 13 of the Act. The arrest was also not done under the Act and while searching the premises, the procedures prescribed under Section 14 (i) (ii) and (iii) and Section 15(2) of the Act, have been violated. Thus, he would pray to quash the impugned FIR. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submissions, relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini and Others vs K.Natarajan and others reported in 2019(1) LW crl 94.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

Haja Nawaz vs The State Represented By on 13 April, 2022

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that according to Section 13 of the Act, only the officer who is the rank of Police Inspector or above, who is specifically authorized by the Government, are entitled to investigate the offences under the ITP Act. In the case on hand, the first respondent is not the competent officer and he was not appointed as Special Officer. He would further submit that the arrest was also not done under the Act and while searching the premises, the procedures prescribed under Section 14 (i) (ii) and (iii) and Section 15(2) of the Act, have been violated. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submissions, relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini and Others vs K.Natarajan and others reported in 2019(1) LW crl 94.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

A.Thanajayan vs The Inspector Of Police on 29 April, 2022

5. In support of his contentions, he relied upon several Judgments in which this Court held in Crl.O.P.No.30001 of 2019 in respect of the provisions under Section 15 of the ITP Act. By relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (1) LW Crl 94 in the case of Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini and Ors. Vs. K.Natarajan and Ors., held that the inspection was not carried out by the Special Police Officer or the Trafficking Police Officer or the Officer who carried out the inspection, was not an authorized Officer under Section 15 of the Act. 4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.15963 of 2020 Further, held that if the search and inspection is not carried out by following the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act, the entire proceeding is illegal in the eye of law. The Police officer failed to follow the mandatory procedure as contemplated under Section 15 of the ITP Act.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

A.Thanajayan vs The Inspector Of Police on 29 April, 2022

5. In support of his contentions, he relied upon several Judgments in which this Court held in Crl.O.P.No.30001 of 2019 in respect of the provisions under Section 15 of the ITP Act. By relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (1) LW Crl 94 in the case of Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini and Ors. Vs. K.Natarajan and Ors., held that the inspection was not carried out by the Special Police Officer or the Trafficking Police Officer or the Officer who carried out the inspection, was not an authorized Officer under Section 15 of the Act. 4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.15963 of 2020 Further, held that if the search and inspection is not carried out by following the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act, the entire proceeding is illegal in the eye of law. The Police officer failed to follow the mandatory procedure as contemplated under Section 15 of the ITP Act.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document
1   2 Next