Allowed

Ajax Thambu v. State Rep.by Inspector

Madras HC1 Oct 2013CRL OP/20200/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition challenges the refusal of the police to register a criminal complaint alleging assault and property damage. The court held that allegations involving cognizable offences supported by CCTV footage require registration and investigation, rejecting the police's status report due to lack of enquiry records.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to register the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 6.7.2013 and proceed with the same in accordance with law.

Ajax Thambu Vs State Rep.by Inspector — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 25.07.2014

¶4

Coram :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.20200 of 2013

¶7

Ajax Thambu .. Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.State rep by the Sub Inspector of Police, Katpadi Police Station, Vellore.

¶10

2.Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Vellore. .. Respondents

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the respondents herein to register the complaint dated 6.7.2013 lodged by the petitioner against the individuals named therein and take action in accordance with law.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.I Subramanian, SC for M/s.Prakash Goklaney

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.Shanmugavelayutham, PP assisted by Mr.C.Emalias, APP

¶14

For Intervenor : Mr.M.Gopinath for Mr.T.R.Ravi

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The present petition is filed by the defacto complainant to register his complaint dated 6.7.2013 against the named individuals therein and to take further action in accordance with law.

¶17

¶18

2.The complaint was lodged by the petitioner in his capacity as General Manager of a concern by name M/s.Thirumalai Caterers, in the premises of VIT University, Vellore. The complaint was, according to the complainant, lodged in connection with an incident taken place inside the canteen premises on the evening of 5.7.2013. The contention raised on the side of the petitioner herein is that though the allegations raised in the complaint clearly made out the commission of cognizable offence, the first respondent Inspector of Police, Kadpadi Police Station, Vellore except assigning CSR.No.144/2013, failed to take up further action and failed to proceed with the enquiry if any and the petitioner's attempt to get the complaint registered as FIR through Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police, ended in vein.

¶19

3.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent Police and the learned counsel for proposed intervenor/VIT University represented by its Register would oppose the relief by throwing the allegations raised against the petitioner herein. It is their contention that on receipt of the complaint CSR was assigned by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadpadi Police Station and the same was submitted to the Inspector of Police for investigation, who conducted thorough enquiry into the matter and examined the complainant and others on the complainant side and

¶20

¶21

Registrar of VIT University, G.V.Selvam, Vice President of VIT University, Karunakaran Chief Security Officer of VIT University and others, on the University side and it was revealed from the investigation that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the complaint and he has given an exaggerated version of the incident and there was no physical violence and no injury sustained to any person and no property was either lost or damaged and the civil dispute was given the colour of a criminal case and that, there were 5 other complaints either against University or at the instance of officers of the University, out of which, 3 complaints were closed and two are pending.

¶22

4.A detailed counter affidavit along with typed set of documents, containing the proceedings filed against each other, was filed on the side of the intervenor.

¶23

5.Heard the rival submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and learned senior counsel for the intervenor.

¶24

¶25

6.As it is now well settled that the intervenor has no right to be heard, pre-registration of the case, this court is inclined to negative the counter contention raised on the side of the intervenor.

¶26

7.As far as the status report filed by the first respondent/IO is concerned, the same may contain the report regarding the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and the outcome of the enquiry. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has failed to produce any record to show that one such enquiry was conducted into the complaint lodged by the petitioner. Though the reading of the status report would reveal that statement was recorded from the parties and their witnesses, spot inspection was made and it revealed exaggeration of theory made by the complainant etc., no record in the shape of enquiry or enquiry report is made available before this court in support of the statement so made in the status report. By reason of non production of one such record, this court is not inclined to accept the status report filed by the first respondent Inspector of Police, Katpadi Police Station, Vellore.

¶27

8.Excluding the same, there is no other record to show that the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein was duly dealt with by the first respondent in accordance with law and also in the light of the

¶28

¶29

directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in ( 2014) 2 SCC 1 (Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others) . At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the nature of the allegations raised in the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this court to the documents enclosed along with the complaint, one among which is CCTV footage, which is according to the complainant, the evidence for the act of threat, assault and property damage etc. Thus, considering the nature of the allegations raised in the complaint, it is the duty of the respondent police to register the same and to proceed with it in accordance with law.

¶30

9.In the result, this criminal original petition is ordered, by directing the first respondent to register the complaint and to proceed with the same in accordance with law.

¶31

Index:Yes/No 25.07.2014 Internet:Yes/No rk

K.B.K.VASUKI, J.

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Katpadi Police Station, Vellore.

¶37

2.Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Vellore.

¶38

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.20200 of 2013

¶40

25.07.2014

Ajax Thambu v. State Rep.by Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajax Thambu v. State Rep.by Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somalaiappan Vs Palanisamy

R. Kandasamy Vs the District Collector

Master Jithu Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Yuvaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police

E.v.Perumal Samy Reddy Vs State Rep.by the Deputy