Disposed

V.Hariram v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC14 Jul 2015CRL OP/17305/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Revision Petition, the High Court directed the police to conduct an inquiry. If a cognizable offence is disclosed, the court held a regular case should be registered, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Lalitha Kumari.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent police to conduct an enquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence is disclosed.

V.Hariram Vs the Commissioner of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.07.2015

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.17305 of 2015

V.Hariram

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.

¶10

The Inspector of Police,
Kondalampatty Police station,
Salem. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:- Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the 2^nd respondent to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 06.05.2015, which was forwarded from the 1^st respondent and investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gandhikumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner has come forward with this petition to direct the 2^nd respondent to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 06.05.2015, which was forwarded from the 1^st respondent and investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.

¶15

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that based on the complaint dated 06.05.2015 lodged by the petitioner, the petition enquiry is pending.

¶16

Recording the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the 2^nd respondent police is directed to conduct enquiry and during the course of enquiry, if the commission of cognizable offence is disclosed, a regular case shall be registered, following the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2014) 2 SCC 1 (Lalitha kumari Vs. Government of Uttarpradesh & Others).

¶17

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

¶18

With the above direction, this petition is closed.

¶19

ssd

¶20

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(J)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kondalampatty Police station,
Salem.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Gandhikumar, Advocate SR 35758
ala(co)
prk27/7
Crl.O.P.No.17305 of 2015

¶21

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

V.Hariram v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Hariram v. the Commissioner 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

T.Geetha Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Usharani Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Ravi Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

Santha Vs the State Rep. by

M.Rathina Mala Vs the Inspector of Police

Smt.Maha Lakshmee Hansbanee Vs the Superintendent of Police