Allowed

K.Sakunthala, v. the Deputy Collector

Madras HC25 Apr 2016CRL OP/2326/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to register a complaint dated 03.08.2013. In absence of petitioner, court directed police to look into the complaint and take legal action if cognizable offences are made out.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent (Inspector of Police) to look into the petitioners complaint dated 03.08.2013 and take appropriate steps if cognizable offences are made out.

K.Sakunthala, Vs the Deputy Collector — 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.2326 of 2015

¶6

K.Sakunthala .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Deputy Collector (Revenue) North O/o The Deputy Collector (Revenue) North Pondicherry

¶8

The Inspector of Police Crime Branch CID Police Pondicherry .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent police to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 03.08.2013 as per the proceedings No.408/DCR(N)/PGR Cell/2013 referred by the 1st respodent to the 2nd respondent police to take action in accordance to law

¶10

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶11

For Respondents : Mrs.M.F.Shabana,

¶12

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to give necessary direction to the second respondent to register the complaint dated 03.08.2013.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not present.

¶16

It is averred in the petition that the petitioner, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint dated 03.08.2013 to the second respondent and even though the cognizable offences are made out, the second respondent has not evinced any interest in registering the complaint dated 03.08.2013. Under the said circumstances, present petition has been filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for getting the relief sought therein.

¶17

Considering the nature of allegations mentioned in the complaint and also considering the order passed by the first respondent, the following direction can be given to the second respondent:

¶18

"In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to look into the complaint dated 03.08.2013 and if any cognizable offences are made out, further directed to take appropriate steps as per law."

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ajr
To
1. The Deputy Collector (Revenue) North
O/o The Deputy Collector (Revenue) North
Pondicherry
2. The Inspector of Police
Crime Branch CID Police
Pondicherry
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr.B.BalaVijayan, Advocate, sr.25679
Crl.O.P No.2326 of 2015
kji co
kra 10.05.2016

¶20

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

K.Sakunthala, v. the Deputy Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sakunthala, v. the Deputy Collector

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

E.Lakshmanan Vs the Director General of Police

Madhiyan, Vs the Superintendent of Police