Disposed

E.Pushparajan v. the State

Madras HC20 Jul 2015CRL OP/17841/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court directed the petitioner to cooperate with pending investigation and the police to conduct the enquiry expeditiously, ordering registration of a regular case if a cognizable offence is found during the ongoing CSR.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before police and cooperate; police directed to complete CSR inquiry and register case if cognizable offence is made out.

E.Pushparajan Vs the State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.07.2015

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.17841 of 2015

¶6

E. Pushparajan ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State Rep by The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Egmore, Chennai.

¶9

Inspector of Police, Station Officer, Madipakkam Police Station, Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to direct the respondent to register a case based on the complaint dated 03.07.2015.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.E. Reegan Amarasekaran For Respondent : Mr.C. Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶12

This criminal original petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register case based on the complaint dated 03.07.2015.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor represented that the petition enquiry is pending in CSR.No. 463 of 2015 and that, summons were issued to the petitioner to appear before the respondent police.

¶15

Recording the same, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police and co-operate with the investigation. The respondent police is directed to expeditiously conduct the enquiry in CSR.No.463 of 2015 and during the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, a regular case shall be

¶16

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

¶17

registered, following the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v.Government of Uttarpradesh & Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.

¶18

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

¶19

sms

¶20

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Egmore,
Chennai.
2. Inspector of Police,
Station Officer,
Madipakkam Police Station,
Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.E.Reegan Amarasekaran, Advocate SR 36454
gj(co)
prk31/7
Crl.O.P.No.17841 of 2015

¶21

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

E.Pushparajan v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Pushparajan v. the State

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

M.Vasantha Vs State Rep. by

Rajesh Vs the State Rep. by

Lathipulla Vs the State Rep. by

Mr.K.Sankaranarayanan Vs the Inspector of Police

S.S.Senthil Vs State Rep. by

Mr.Mohamed Qamar Ahmed Vs the State Rep by Its