Dismissed

M.Balasubramanian v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC2 Mar 2015CRL OP(MD)/1398/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking direction to register an FIR. The court police had already conducted a petition enquiry to ascertain if a cognizable offence was disclosed, relying on the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari, and noted that further enquiry was not warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no directions to register case granted as police enquiry was held sufficient.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 30.03.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM

¶6

Crl.O.P. No.1398 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015

¶7

M.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

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

¶10

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karaikudi,Sivagangai District.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station (L & O), Karaikudi,

¶12

Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶13

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the third respondent to register the case/FIR on the complaint of the petitioner dated 22.1.2015 and to investigate to file a final report within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukumar

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan, G.A (Crl.side)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for a direction to the third respondent to register the case/FIR on the complaint of the petitioner dated 22.1.2015 and to investigate to file a final report within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶18

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents.

¶19

¶20

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) informs that based on the complaint of the petitioner, petition enquiry stands conducted and closed.

¶21

4.In this case interim order to the following effect has been passed on 30.1.2015:-

¶22

"By way of an interim order, this Court directs respondent police to peruse the complaint preferred by petitioner herein and register a case if the same informs commission of cognizable offence. In particular instances, respondent police may resort to a petition enquiry which again shall not extend beyond a period of one week. This order is made towards effecting and ensuring compliance with the decision of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC)]. It is expected that respondent police will follow the dictate of the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment in letter and spirit and not give room for any further action at the hands of this Court. In the event of respondent police not being in receipt of complaint allegedly preferred before them by petitioner, it would always be open for respondent police to inform such position at the next hearing date."

¶23

5.The petition shall stand closed with the observation that if the petition enquiry conducted in the case is seen to be a ruse to avoid registration of case where complaint informs commission of cognizable offences the same certainly would amount to disobedience of direction of this Court by way of interim order referred to above. It must be noted that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC)] permits conduct of petition enquiry only to the limited extent of ascertaining whether the complaint informs cognizable offence as distinct from extending the same towards informing the complaint to be false, a mistake of fact and the like. It is also to be noted that in such decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the need to take action against erring police officials. The petitioner is at liberty to move action in contempt if appropriate. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(T & P)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶33

3.The Inspector of Police,North Police Station (L & O),Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶34

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.Arun @ Swaminathan, Advocate, in SR. No.15733.

¶36

Crl.O.P. No.1398 of 2015 and M.P.MD) No.1 of 2015 30.03.2015

¶37

ses msm 21.04.2015 p3/6c

¶38

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

M.Balasubramanian v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Balasubramanian 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

V.Balaji Vs E.Thilagam

Mrf Limited Vs Mrs.Ujjawal Sampath Chordia

Shanthi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Karupaiah Vs the Superintendent of Police

Rengarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

D.Selladurai Vs the Inspector of Police