Partly allowed

R.Prakasam v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC1 Jun 2015CRL OP/9932/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a criminal original petition seeking direction to police to register a case. The court directed the petitioner to furnish the complaint copy personally, noting that non-cooperation justified closing the current petition pending compliance with Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with direction to petitioner to submit complaint copy to police for inquiry.

R.Prakasam Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 01.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP.No.9932 of 2015

¶6

R.Prakasam ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, Timiri Police Station, Vellore District. ...Respondents

¶10

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondents to register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 18.03.2015 and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶11

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Seeking a direction to the respondents to register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 18.03.2015 and take appropriate action in accordance with law, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶15

2.No representation for the petitioner.

¶16

3.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and perused the material placed on record.

¶17

3.It is represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has sent a complaint dated 18.03.2015 to the respondents by post and he did not co-operate with the investigation. Hence, this petition is closed, with a direction to the petitioner to give a copy of the complaint dated 18.03.2015 to the 2^nd respondent police in person and on such complaint being given, the 2^nd respondent shall enquire into it in accordance with law, following the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Uttarpradesh & Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.

¶18

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

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mps
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Timiri Police Station,
Vellore District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.OP.No.9932 of 2015
ALA(CO)
Eu 16.06.15

¶20

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

R.Prakasam v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Prakasam 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

Suresh @ Kasiniventhan @ Vs the Inspector of Police

Kumarasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Chinnadurai Vs the Inspector of Police

Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Police

Rajaguru Spinning Mills P Ltd. Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Selvaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police