Disposed

P.Ravi v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC8 Feb 2016CRL OP/1078/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to register an FIR based on a 2015 complaint. The court noted the loss of the original complaint file and directed the petitioner to file a fresh complaint with the appropriate authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint before the second respondent, who is then directed to conduct an enquiry and register a case if necessary.

P.Ravi Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.02.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1078 of 2016

¶6

P.Ravi

¶7

Power of Attorney Agent of Mr.B.Mahendar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police Mahabalipuram Police Station Mahabalipuram, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 2^nd respondent to register F.I.R. on the complaint of the petitioner dated 21.09.2015 and investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Muralikumaran for M/S.MCGAN Law Firm

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias

¶14

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to register a case pertaining to the petitioner's complaint dated 21.09.2015.

¶16

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the first respondent on 21.09.2015. But the respondents have not shown any interest to enquire the matter and register the case. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief.

¶17

3.At this juncture, the learned Additional Public https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prosecutor would submit that the respondents are unable to

¶18

give the number assigned to the petitioner's complaint and also unable to disclose as to whether the complaint has been forwarded to the second respondent. However, a direction may be given to the petitioner to give a fresh complaint, to act in accordance with law.

¶19

4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh complaint before the second respondent. On receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to conduct enquiry and follow the dictum laid down in Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P & others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC) and register a case, if any cognizable offence is made out.

¶20

The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the
above direction.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kj
To
1.The Superintendent of Police
Office of the Superintendent of Police
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Mahabalipuram Police Station
Mahabalipuram, Kancheepuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to M/S.MCGAN Law Firm, Advocate, S.R.No.8271
Crl.O.P.No.1078 of 2016
RV(CO)
CA(18/02/2016)

¶21

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

P.Ravi v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ravi 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

S. Periyathambi Vs the Commissioner of Police

N.Arumugam Vs the State Rep by

M/S.Ideal Drymixes (India) Pvt. Vs the Superintendent of Police

G.Vivekananthan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Munusamy Reddie Vs Superintendent of Police

N.D.Sukumar Vs State Rep. by