Disposed

Paulchidadurai v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC18 Feb 2016CRL OP/2779/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed for direction to register a case regarding property transaction disputes. Court directed petitioner to submit a fresh complaint. Police directed to register case upon receipt if cognizable offence is made out, citing Lalitha Kumari.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to give a fresh complaint; second respondent to enquire and register a case if cognizable offence is made out.

Paulchidadurai Vs the Commissioner of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.02.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.2779 of 2016

¶6

Paulchinadurai .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai.

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, (Crime), V5 Thirumangalam Police Station, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar West, Chennai 40. .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent to register a case against the named person on the petitioner's complaint dated 15.10.2015.

¶11

For Petitioner :Mr.V.Illanchezian

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent to register a case against the named person on the petitioner's complaint dated 15.10.2015.

¶14

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property and he leased out the same in favour of one Madhankumar, Son of Venkatesan, who in turn sold the same to one Maheswari. Hence, the petitioner has given a complaint to the second respondent on 02.03.2015 against the said Maheswari and Madhankumar. But the respondents have not shown any interest to enquire the matter and register the case. Hence, the present criminal original petition is filed for the above stated relief.

¶15

3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in the month of March 2015, C.S.R.No.226 of 2015 has been assigned, after due enquiry, the same has been closed. But the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ matter was adjourned for getting instruction. According to

¶16

him, the second respondent has not received any complaint from the petitioner.

¶17

4.Considering the submissions made on both sides and on perusing the typed set of papers, the complaint has been sent by the petitioner vide registered post and postal receipt has also been filed to that effect. However, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh complaint to the second respondent and on receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to enquire the matter as expeditiously as possible 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
cla
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, (Crime),
V5 Thirumangalam Police Station,
Thirumangalam,
Anna Nagar West,
Chennai 40.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.2779 of 2016

¶21

BVR(CO) Eu 14.03.16

¶22

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

Paulchidadurai v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paulchidadurai 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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Vs S. Bhuvaneswari

Senthamarai Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Kanniyappan Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Rajendran Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.K.Balusamy Vs the Superintendent of Police

Creature Export Firm Rep. by Vs C. Kesavan