Dismissed

Suseela v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC22 Jul 2016CRL OP/10329/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking direction to register an FIR. The court accepted the Government Advocate's submission that the pending complaint was treated as civil in nature and closed it after due enquiry, directing police to furnish the closure report.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition was closed, and the third respondent was directed to furnish the closure report of the closed complaint to the petitioner within one week.

Suseela Vs the Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.07.2016

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.10329 of 2014

Suseela

.. Petitioner

Vs.

State rep. by The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police, Vellore District.

¶10

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Vellore District.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, District Crime Branch, Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to direct the third respondent police to register the FIR based on the complaint dated 31.01.2014 pending before the third respondent in Cr.No.Not Known of 2014.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.N.S.Amarnath For respondents : Mr.D.Sivaram Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

2.It is averred in petition that forged patta was created by one Sampath and two others and they also threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and the complaint given to the third respondent had no response. Hence, the present criminal original petition has been filed.

¶17

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the complaint dated 31.01.2014 given by the petitioner was treated as petition and after due enquiry the same is closed as civil in nature.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Recording the submission of the learned Government

¶19

Advocate (crl. side), this criminal original petition is closed. The third respondent/police is directed to furnish copy of the closure report to the petitioner within a week from today.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsh
To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch, Vellore District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell,
District Crime Branch, Vellore District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.10329 of 2014
ev co
kra 08.08.2016

¶21

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

Suseela v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suseela 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devi Vs Venugopal

K.Velmurugan Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Murugesan Vs the Commissioner of Police

U.K.Manimaran Vs the Commissioner of Police

M.Dhanasekar Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Anand, Age 29, Vs State Rep.by the Inspector of