Allowed

S.Yasar Arafath v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Nov 2013CRL OP(MD)/10766/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court directed the police to register an FIR based on the petitioner's complaint regarding land encroachment and threats, holding that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to register a case on petitioner's complaint dated 10.06.2013 and second respondent to monitor investigation.

S.Yasar Arafath Vs the Inspector of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.11.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10766 of 2013

¶7

S.Yasar Arafath ...Petitioner/

¶8

Defacto Complainant Vs.

¶9

1 The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Devathanapati Police Station, Devathanapatti,Theni District.

¶10

2.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District. ..Respondents/Complainants

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the first respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 10.06.2013 and pass suitable orders as this Court deem fit.

¶12

For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Yasar Arafath

¶13

(Party-in-person)

¶14

For Respondents:: Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This application is filed seeking for a direction directing the first respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 10.06.2013.

¶17

2.The petitioner, who is a Practicing Advocate of this Court, has appeared before this Court. He submits that he has agricultural land in his home town and in front of the petitioner's land one Nasir and Karuthiah Rowthar and some other persons are residing and they put a gate in Government Porambokku land and forbidden the petitioner to enter into his land and threatened the petitioner to sell his land. He further submits that the said persons tried to attack the petitioner with some deadly weapon and used filthy language and the petitioner lodged a complaint dated 10.06.2013 but the complaint has not been registered so far and he has made a representation to the second respondent.

¶18

3.Further, the petitioner complained that informing his complaint to the first respondent, the first respondent has made absolutely no response and therefore, he seeks a direction for registration of case on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 10.06.2013.

¶19

Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner has not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ co-operated with the respondents and appeared before them. In response, the petitioner,party-in-person,submits that the allegation against the petitioner having not co-operated with the respondents is false and despite repeatedly calling upon the respondents, the respondents have failed to act upon his complaint. On the other hand, the petitioner learns

¶20

¶21

that a false complaint stands preferred against him by the offending party.

¶22

This Court perused a copy of the complaint dated 10.06.2013 and the same would disclose the commission of cognizable offence. Hence, this Courts directs the first respondent to register a case upon the complaint of the petitioner dated 10.06.2013 and the second respondent is directed to monitor the investigation therein.

¶23

With the above direction, this petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

To,

¶29

1.TheInspector of Police,Devathanapati Police Station, Devathanapatti,Theni District.

¶30

2.The Superintendent of Police,Theni District.

¶31

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.Yasar Arafath Party in Person in SR.No. 54025.

¶33

TS/19.11.2013/2P-5C

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10766 of 2013

¶35

06.11.2013

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Yasar Arafath v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Yasar Arafath v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Senguttuvan Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Shanthi Vs the Inspector of Police

G. Ravi Vs the Superintendent of Customs

Jai Sankar Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Lilly Sarojini Vs the Inspector of Police

Periyannan Vs the Inspector of Police