Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sunder Mohan, J
K.Megala – Appellant
Versus
1.The Superintendent of Police, 2.The Inspector of Police, 3.Poomalar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeking closure of fir due to personal circumstances. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's directive ensuring petitioner's autonomy and protection. (Para 5) |
ORDER
The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to close the FIR in Crime No.276 of 2025 as mistake of fact and to take action against the third respondent, by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 06.11.2025.
2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police, on instructions, would submit that the third respondent had lodged a complaint on 04.09.2025 stating that the petitioner, who was then a minor, went missing; that the respondent police, therefore, went in search of the petitioner; that the respondent police have not harassed the petitioner in any manner; that if the petitioner, who has now attained majority (DOB:04.11.2007) is voluntarily staying with someone, the respondent police would close the case recording the said fact.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is living with her aunt at Pudukottai, as the third respondent is forcing to marry a person against her wish.
4.The petitioner is present in person and h
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
