Disposed

Joseph Stalin v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC1 Aug 2013CRL OP(MD)/10920/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought registration of a complaint under Section 482 CrPC as Police failed to act despite receiving it. Court noted the complaint was already disposed of after enquiry. Petitioner referred to Sakiri Vasu dictum to avoid lurch. Order disposed of petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to invoke Sakiri Vasu dictum before filing Section 482 CrPC application; petition disposed of.

Joseph Stalin Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.08.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10920 of 2013

Joseph Stalin

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Sambavar Vadakarai Police Station, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 13.03.2013 and investigate the matter in accordance with law.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Mathiyalagan

¶14

For Respondents :Mr.A.P.Balasubramanian

¶15

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner approaches this Court with a prayer to direct respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 13.03.2013 and investigate the matter in accordance with law.

¶18

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents.

¶19

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has given a complaint on 13.03.2013, even though the respondents have received the complaint, neither he made an enquiry nor registered a case and hence, the petitioner has come forward with this application for the above said relief.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that after due enquiry, the petition was closed on 04.06.2013.

¶21

5.Considering the rival submissions made on either side, the complaint given by the petitioner dated 13.03.2013 has been closed after enquiring and the petitioner cannot be left in lurch, he is directed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ invoke the dictum laid down in the case in Sakiri Vasu vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2008 (2) SCC 409, before filing this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

¶23

With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶29

2.The Inspector of Police, Sambavar Vadakarai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶30

3.The Public Prosecutor,

¶31

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶32

Ts/14.08.2013/2p-4c

¶33

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10920 of 2013

¶34

01.08.2013

¶35

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

Joseph Stalin v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Stalin v. the Superintendent of Police

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

Ali Akbar Vs the Inspector of Police

Saravanan Vs the Inspector of Police

K.J.Thomas Vs Forest Range Officer

Shajitha Begam Vs the Director General of Police

P.Selvakumaran Vs the Superintendent of Police

Keerthana Vs the Inspector of Police