Disposed

Munusamy Reddie v. Superintendent of Police

Madras HC8 Feb 2016CRL OP/1308/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought direction to register a complaint lodged in 2012. The court held the complaint was sent to the wrong authority and directed the petitioner to file it afresh with the correct Inspector.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file fresh complaint with Inspector of Police, Anti-land Grabbing Cell, Vellore. Police directed to expedite enquiry and register case if cognizable offence made out.

Munusamy Reddie Vs 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.1308 of 2016

¶6

Munusamy Reddie .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Superintendent of Police Vellore District Tamil Nadu. .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 1^st respondent to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 01.02.2012 and to investigate the same and file a final report within a time limit to be stipulated by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Dharanidharan For Respondent :Mr.C.Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the respondent to register a case pertaining to the petitioner's complaint dated 01.02.2012.

¶12

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondent on 01.02.2012. He has also sent a reminder complaint on 14.02.2015. But the respondent has 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.

¶13

3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that C.S.R. number has not been properly given. The police, to whom the reminder complaint was sent on 14.02.2015, is entirely different from the respondent police herein. If the petitioner would give a fresh complaint, it can be considered in accordance with law.

¶14

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

¶15

4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, petitioner's complaint has not been sent to the proper party. Hence, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh complaint to the Inspector of Police, Anti-land Grabbing Cell, Vellore. On receipt of the same, the Inspector of Police, Anti-land Grabbing Cell, Vellore is directed to consider the same and to expedite the 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.

¶16

The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶17

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
kj
To
1.The Superintendent of Police
Vellore District
Tamil Nadu.
2.Inspector of Police
Anti Land Grabbing Cell
Vellore.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.1308 of 2016

¶19

aa23/02/2016

¶20

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

Munusamy Reddie v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munusamy Reddie v. 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

P.Ravi Vs the Superintendent of Police

N.D.Sukumar Vs State Rep. by