Disposed

G.Vivekananthan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC8 Feb 2016CRL OP/447/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition seeking direction to register a complaint, the court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh complaint to the second respondent. Upon receipt, the second respondent was ordered to conduct an enquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence is made out, following the dictum in Lalitha Kumari.

What did the court decide?

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

G.Vivekananthan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | 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.447 of 2016

¶6

G.Vivekananthan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Namakkal Police Station
Namakkal. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 03.10.2015 and investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to register a case pertaining to the petitioner's complaint dated 03.10.2015.

¶11

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondents on 03.10.2015 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.

¶12

3.At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that there is no evidence to show that copy of the complaint has been furnished to the second respondent. If the petitioner would give fresh complaint to the second respondent, the respondents are ready https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to register the complaint by following the procedure.

¶13

4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh complaint before the second respondent. On receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to conduct 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.

¶14

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

¶15

Sd/-

¶16

Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kj
To
1.The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Namakkal Police Station
Namakkal.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.R.Nalliyappan, Advocate, S.R.No.8076

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.447 of 2016

¶18

MG(CO) CA(19/02/2016)

¶19

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

G.Vivekananthan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Vivekananthan 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

S. Periyathambi Vs the Commissioner of Police

N.Arumugam Vs the State Rep by

M/S.Ideal Drymixes (India) Pvt. Vs the Superintendent of Police

Munusamy Reddie Vs Superintendent of Police

P.Ravi Vs the Superintendent of Police

N.D.Sukumar Vs State Rep. by