Petitioner sought direction to register a criminal complaint regarding trespass and damages in premises where an injunction was granted. Court directed police to register the case under Apex Court principles instead of referring parties to civil court.
First respondent directed to register a case and investigate under principles of re Lalita Kumari.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.03.2015
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.RAMANATHAN
Crl.O.P.No.1015 of 2015
C.Subathra Banu
...Petitioner
vs.
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the first respondent/The Inspector of Police, R11, Royala Nagar Police Station, Ramapuram, Chennai - 600 089. to register a case against one Magesh and his henchmem on the complaint given by the petitioner, which was forwarded to the second respondent on 07.01.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Magimairaj For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking direction upon the respondent/Police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, dated 07.01.2015.
injunction, and also obtained an order of injunction in her favour, by taking out Interlocutory Application, I.A.No.4 of 2015, and the suit is pending. Thereafter, the said Magesh and his wife and others tresspassed into her office, called her by cast name and abused her and also threatened her with dire consequences, if she does not vacate the premises. Thereafter, on 07.01.2015, when she came to her office at 8.00, a.m, she found that the lock was broken and law books and cash of Rs.1,27,000/- were found missing. Regarding the said incident, the petitioner has given a complaint before the respondent/Police. As the said complaint is not yet registered, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the aforesaid relief.
seek redressal before the civil court. If the respondent/Police, after enquiry finds that the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint are not true, then, they shall refer the case as “mistake of fact”. Hence, the first respondent is directed to follow the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in re Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & others, reported in [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC)], and register a case on the complaint given by the petitioner, if cognizable offence is made out.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sd
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
R11, Royala Nagar Police Station,
Ramapuram, Chennai - 600 089.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Egmore, Chennai- 600 007.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+2cc's to Mr.S.Magimai Raj, Advocate, S.R.No.12137 +1cc to Mr.N.Vanaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.12096
Crl.O.P.No. 1015 of 2015 SV(CO) CA(18/03/2015)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether police are duty-bound to register a case when an injunction order exists despite concurrent civil suit pendency?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
re Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & others, [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC)]Relied on¶20
2 provisions across 2 enactments
C.Subathra Banu
The State
R.S.RAMANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
