Disposed

Mr.Kharthik Gounder v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC21 Apr 2016CRL OP/3361/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought registration of FIR and investigation under CrPC Section 482. Court held investigation was under way and directed second respondent to expedite enquiry and register case if cognizable offence is made out, relying on Lalitha Kumari.

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent police to expedite enquiry, follow Lalitha Kumari dictum, and register case if cognizable offence is made out.

Mr.Kharthik Gounder Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.04.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.3361 of 2016

¶6

Mr.Kharthik Gounder ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Commissioner of Police, City Police Officer Campus, Hosur Road, Gopalapuram, Near Collectorate Office, Coimbatore – 641 018. 2.The Inspector of Police City Crime Branch, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. (R2 impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 21.04.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.4742 of 2016 in Crl.O.P.No.3361 of 2016) ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer :

¶8

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to issue direction to the respondent to depute the Investigating Officer and register the FIR and investigate the offences disclosed in the complaint dated 02.02.2016 given by the petitioner.

¶9

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking a direction to the respondent to depute the Investigating Officer and register the FIR and investigate the offences disclosed in the complaint dated 02.02.2016 given by the petitioner.

¶10

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

¶11

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 02.02.2016, 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.

¶12

3.At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, investigation is going on.

¶13

4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner as investigation is going on, the second respondent police is directed to expedite the enquiry 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. The petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent on 28.04.2016 along with all the relevant documents.

¶14

5.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition
is disposed of.
pri
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
City Police Officer Campus,
Hosur Road,
Gopalapuram,
Near Collectorate Office,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
2.The Inspector of Police
City Crime Branch,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.T.Thiageswarn, Advocate SR 24626
nrjk(co)
prk28/4 Crl.O.P.No.3361 of 2016

¶15

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

Mr.Kharthik Gounder v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Kharthik Gounder v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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.G.Santhanam Vs State Rep by

B. Rajesh Vs The Commissioner of Police

Sri K.Ponmeena Shankar Vs R.Vijaya Bharathi

Anandh Vs State Rep. by

Balamani Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Suresh Kumar Vs the Sub-Divisional Executive