MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Directs To Preserve CCTV Footage of Allegations Of Illegal Detention By Police Officers: Madras HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D:07-06-2022

The Madras High Court recently ordered the Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent Of Police, and Inspector of Police of the Sankarankovil Town Police Station in Tenkasi District and the Inspector of Police of the Rajapalam Police Station in Viruthunagar District to preserve the CCTV footages recorded on April 6 and 7 in relation to an allegation of illegal detention against certain police officials.

Justice V. Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench stated as follows: Considering the importance of the CCTV footage to adjudicate the issue in this case, the respondents 1 through 4 are ordered to preserve the CCTV footages recorded on 06.04.2022 and 07.04.2022 at Venkateswara Clinic and Selvam Tea Stall, Kumaran Sweets Store, Anandham Cloth Store, and Aandal Jewelers.

The petitioner's case was that his friend Karthick had borrowed and returned his automobile. Later, the aforementioned Karthick stole the Petitioner's car using a phoney key without her permission. Sub Inspector of Police Selvam subsequently informed her that Karthick had filed a complaint against her and demanded that she hand over the car key. The Petitioner handed the sub-inspector the car keys.

On April 6, 2022, police officers from the Kellarajakularaman Police Station took the petitioner against her will to the Sankarankovil Bus stand, held her in illegal custody, harassed her, and demanded the car. They subsequently left her at the Gandhi Statue in Rajapalayam. The petitioner has requested CCTV footage from these locations because her presence may have been captured by the cameras. However, the shop owners at these locations informed her that CCTV footage would only be provided upon request from police officials.

The petitioner also stated that she communicated with the respondent in an effort to take action against the harassing police officers. However, no action has yet been taken. The petitioner also argued that the videotapes were crucial to proving the case, and she feared that they would be destroyed. Therefore, she petitioned the court for instructions to preserve the permitted footage.

Mahalakshmi

v/s.

The Superintendent of Police and others

Latest Legal News