D.MURALIDHARAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments on this petition and perused the petition filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate observed that the petitioner herein and his father had filed two petitions in M.P. Nos. 555 of 2011 and 554 of 2011 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and that the petitions had been filed to call for the tower report from the aircel, vodafone, south limited, bharati airtel limited etc. However, the learned Magistrate on observing the contentions of the prosecution that the report as requested by the petitioner from the various Departments is not maintainable as per law and that he is not entitled to disprove the case, held that the petition is not maintainable as per the facts of the case and on observing that the M.P. Nos. 555 and 554 of 2011 are pending, opined that the said report cannot be called for as requested by the petitioner and hence, dismissed the petition.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the above revision has been filed.