Disposed

Vinoth Kumar v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC22 Feb 2016CRL OP/1824/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras directed the police to conduct an enquiry and expedite the same, guiding them to follow the Lalitha Kumari SC decision to register a case if a cognizable offence is made out, based on the petitioner's complaint.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent police was directed to conduct enquiry and expedite the same and register a case if any cognizable offence is made out.

Vinoth Kumar Vs the Commissioner of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.02.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1824 of 2016

¶6

Vinoth Kumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Mambalam Range
T.Nagar, Chennai.
3.Inspector of Police
Mambalam Police Station
T.Nagar, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the third respondent to register the case on the basis of the complaint dated 08.12.2015 and investigate the matter in accordance with law.

¶8

For Petitioner :Mr.T.Muruganantham For Respondents :Mr.C.Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the third respondent to register a case pertaining to the petitioner's complaint dated 08.12.2015.

¶10

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondents on 08.12.2015. 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.

¶11

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

¶12

3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, enquiry is going on.

¶13

4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 08.12.2015. Therefore, the third respondent police is directed to conduct enquiry and expedite the same 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. The petitioner is directed to co-operate for enquiry.

¶14

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

¶15

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Mambalam Range
T.Nagar, Chennai.
3.Inspector of Police
Mambalam Police Station
T.Nagar, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+ 1 cc to Mr.T.Muruganantham Advocate SR10833
gj(co)
prk26/2 Crl.O.P.No.1824 of 2016

¶16

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

Vinoth Kumar v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinoth Kumar v. the Commissioner 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

Mrs.S.Loshika, W/O.Shanmugavel Vs Mr.K.Sathish Kannanan

G.Purushothaman Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

M. Sathya Narayana, Vs the Commissioner of Police

J.C.Gissaram Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Babu Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Ramaiah Vs the Commissioner of Police