Disposed

M.Parthasarathy v. State Rep. by

Madras HC11 Feb 2016CRL OP/3022/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

It is a Crl. O.P. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the police to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint. The High Court, noting that an inquiry was already underway, directed the police to expeditiously complete the inquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence is made out.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to expeditiously conduct the inquiry in C.S.R.No.68 of 2016 and register a case if any cognizable offence is made out.

M.Parthasarathy Vs State Rep. by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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.3022 of 2016

¶6

M.Parthasarathy

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep.by The Inspector of Police, T-6, Avadi Police Station, Avadi, Chennai-54. .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent viz., the Inspector of Police,T6, Avadi to register on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 21.01.2016.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Milton Arul Rajendran For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias

¶11

Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶12

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 21.01.2016.

¶13

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondent on 21.01.2016, for which, C.S.R.No.68 of 2016 has been assigned. 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.

¶14

At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry in C.S.R.No.68 of 2016 is going on.

¶15

4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, as enquiry is going on in C.S.R.No.68 of 2016, the respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and follow the dictum laid down in

¶16

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

¶17

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

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
T-6, Avadi Police Station,
Avadi, Chennai-54.
2.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+1 cc to M/s.J.Milton Arul Rajendran Advocte sr.8903
Crl.O.P.No.3022 of 2016
aa19/02/2016

¶20

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

M.Parthasarathy v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Parthasarathy v. State Rep. by

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

A.Prakash Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sujeet Singh Vs the State Rep by

Senthil Kumar Vs K.K.Sathishkumar

S.H.Meera Saheb Vs the Inspector of Police

E.Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police

Dr.D.Palani Vs the Inspector of Police