Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

Dindigul Road vs The Superintendent Of Police ...

Madras High Court|15 December, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

It is stated that the petitioner Club is registered, under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the registration number is R.No.111/2001. It has also obtained a licence to run a bar in License No.F.L.2No.6/2009-2010, dated 07.09.2009. It has been further stated that the petitioner Club has been established for the purpose of serving its members and it has been sponsoring sports activities, including physical fitness training. No gambling is carried on in the petitioner Club. However, the respondents are, unnecessarily, interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner Club. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that certain complaints were lodged by the petitioner Club, with regard to certain persons, who are not members of the petitioner Club. Based on the complaints lodged by the petitioner Club, the respondent police have registered three separate cases, in Crime No.402 of 2009, dated 14.11.2009, for the offence under Sections 294-B, 323,427 & 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.405 of 2009, dated 16.11.2009, for the offence under Sections 147,148, 294-B, 427,336 & 506(ii) IPC and 379 IPC (NP) and in Crime No.408 of 2009, dated 17.11.2009, for the offence under Sections 147 & 341 IPC. Based on the complaints, the respondents have been investigating into the matters. It has been stated that the respondents have not interfered, unnecessarily, in the lawful activities of the club, as alleged by the petitioner.
3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, since no further order is necessary, the writ petition stands closed. However, it is made clear that if any illegal activity is carried on in the club, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action, in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
gcg To
1.The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Office of the Superintendent of Police, Therkku Gopuravasal, Madurai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samyanallur, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Solavandan Police Station, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.
4.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Dindigul Road vs The Superintendent Of Police ...

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
15 December, 2009