Allowed

E.Lakshmanan v. the Director General of Police

Madras HC25 Apr 2016CRL OP/2100/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Crl.O.P. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the police station to register a complaint dated 12.01.2015. The Court allowed the petition, directing the third respondent to investigate the allegations.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The third respondent is strictly directed to look into the allegations in the complaint dated 12.01.2015 and take appropriate steps if cognizable offences ar

E.Lakshmanan Vs the Director General of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶5

Crl.O.P No.2100 of 2015

¶6

E.Lakshmanan .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai 4 2. The Superintendent of Police District Police Office Thiruvannamalai 606 604 3. The Sub Inspector of Police Kalambur Police Station Thiruvannamalai District 606 903 .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to invoke its inherent power in favour of the petitioner and direct the third respondent to register the complaint dated 12.01.2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kalambur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Parigopal For Respondents : Mrs.M.F.Shabana,

¶10

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to direct the respondents to register the complaint dated 12.01.2015.

¶13

It is averred in the petition that the petitioner, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint dated 12.01.2015, wherein certain allegations have been made against the persons mentioned therein, but the third respondent has not registered the same. Under such circumstances, present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

¶14

Considering the nature of allegations made in the complaint dated 12.01.2015 and also considering the fact that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the third respondent has not taken proper steps in respect of

¶15

the complaint dated 12.01.2015, the following direction can be issued:

¶16

"In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The third respondent is strictly directed to look into the allegations made in the complaint dated 12.01.2015 and if any cognizable offences are made out, further directed to take appropriate steps as per law."

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ajr
To
1. The Director General of Police
Mylapore, Chennai 4
2. The Superintendent of Police
District Police Office
Thiruvannamalai 606 604
3. The Sub Inspector of Police
Kalambur Police Station
Thiruvannamalai District 606 903
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶18

1 cc to Mr.Parigopal, Advocate, sr.25562

¶19

Crl.O.P No.2100 of 2015

¶20

kji co kra 09.05.2016

¶21

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

E.Lakshmanan v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Lakshmanan v. the Director General 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

R.Kannan Vs State Rep by

G.Sivabalan Vs Inspector of Police

Paramasivam Vs State Rep. by

Dr.Thahir Vs the Inspector

K.Sakunthala, Vs the Deputy Collector

Madhiyan, Vs the Superintendent of Police