Allowed

Mr.D.Raman v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC12 Feb 2016CRL OP/3100/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal original petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the second respondent police to register an FIR and investigate a complaint lodged on 06.01.2016. The court directed the police to expedite the enquiry and register a case if any cognizable offence was made out, following the dicta in Lalitha Kumari.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent police is directed to conduct an enquiry and expedite the same, and register a case if any cognitable offence is made out.

Mr.D.Raman Vs the Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.02.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.3100 of 2016

¶6

D.Raman ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police Thiruvannamalai District. 2.Inspector of Police Chetpet Police Station Chetpet Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent to register an F.I.R. based on the petitioner's complaint dated 06.01.2016 pending on the file of the second respondent and investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.Gajalakshmi Rajendran For R1 : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent to register a case pertaining to the petitioner's complaint dated 06.01.2016.

¶10

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondents on 06.01.2016 and he has also filed an acknowledgment card to that effect. 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

3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enquiry is going on.

¶12

4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 06.01.2016 and he has also filed an acknowledgment card to that effect. Therefore, the second 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.

¶13

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

¶14

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kj To 1.The Superintendent of Police Thiruvannamalai District. 2.The Inspector of Police Chetpet Police Station Chetpet Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.

¶15

+1cc to Ms.Gajalakshmi Rajendran, Advocate, S.R.No.9459

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.3100 of 2016

¶17

ALA(CO) CA(24/02/2016)

¶18

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

Mr.D.Raman v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.D.Raman v. the Superintendent 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

M.Parthasarathy Vs State Rep. by

F.Umar Sharieff Vs the Inspector of Police

V.P.Pavithran Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Loganathan Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Badhrinarayanan Vs Inspector of Police

Vasu Vs State Rep. by