Disposed

Vasu v. State Rep. by

Madras HC12 Feb 2016CRL OP/3194/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought a direction to respondents to register a case based on a complaint lodged on 22.12.2015. The court directed the District Crime Branch to conduct an inquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence was made out, citing Lalitha Kumari.

What did the court decide?

The District Crime Branch, Tiruvannamalai, is directed to conduct enquiry, expedite it, and register a case if any cognizable offence is made out.

Vasu Vs State Rep. by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶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.3194 of 2016

¶6

Vasu ... Petitioner/Complainant

¶7

Vs.
State rep. by
1.Inspector of Police
Sathanur Dam Police station
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Superintendent of Police
Thiruvannamalai District
Thiruvannamalai. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents to investigate and register a case pursuant to the petitioner's complaint dated 22.12.2015 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 365, 468 and 506(ii) IPC.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias

¶11

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This petition is filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to register a case pursuant to the petitioner's complaint dated 22.12.2015 for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 365, 468 and 506(ii) IPC.

¶14

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the second respondent on 22.12.2015 against Mani and others. But he has not taken any steps to enquire the matter and register the case. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief.

¶15

3.At this juncture, learned Additional Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by one

¶16

Mani, C.S.R.No.128 of 2015 was assigned, the same was enquired and closed on 13.11.2015. He would further submit that this matter is pending before the District Crime Branch, Tiruvannamalai.

¶17

4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, the District Crime Branch, Tiruvannamalai, 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kj
To
1.Inspector of Police
Sathanur Dam Police station
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Superintendent of Police
Thiruvannamalai District
Thiruvannamalai.
3.The Station Officer,
District Crime Branch
Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.R.Balakrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.9099

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.3194 of 2016

¶21

GJ(CO) CA(26/02/2016)

¶22

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

Vasu v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasu 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

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

Arunkumar Vs State Rep. by