Disposed

S.Narayanan v. State Rep. by

Madras HC10 Mar 2016CRL OP/5344/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking direction to register a pending police complaint. Court directed petitioner to cooperate with police, expedited enquiry, and ordered case registration if cognizable offence is made out, relying on Lalitha Kumari case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to cooperate; respondent police directed to expedite enquiry and register case if cognizable offence is made out.

S.Narayanan Vs State Rep. by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. MALA

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.5344 of 2016

¶6

S.Narayanan ... Petitioner/Defacto complainant .. Vs ..

¶7

State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, K2 Ayanavaram Police Station, (Law and Order), Chennai - 23. (C.S.R.No.1593/2015) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶8

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the respondent police to register the petitioner's complaint dated 15.12.2015 in 1593/CSR/K2PS/15, dated 15.12.2015 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.T.V.G.Kartheeban For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶10

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, directing the respondent police to register the petitioner's complaint dated 15.12.2015 in 1593/CSR/K2PS/15, dated 15.12.2015 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has given a complaint to the respondent police as early as on 15.12.2015, but, however, the respondent police had not taken any steps to register a case and hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief.

¶12

At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry in C.S.R.No.1593 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2015 is pending.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police and co-operate for enquiry and similarly, the 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.

¶14

With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶15

Sd/-

¶16

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Jrl
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
K2 Ayanavaram Police Station, (Law and Order),
Chennai - 23.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.T.V.G.Kartheeban, Advocate, S.R.No.15789
CRL.O.P.No.5344 of 2016
LRS(CO)
CA(21/03/2016)

¶17

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

S.Narayanan v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Narayanan 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

Panimalar Vs State by the Inspector of

N.Rajani Vs Gopkumaran Nair

Ravichandran Vs Inspector of Police

S.Nalini, Vs The Superintendent of Prison

Nezeer Vs the Inspector of Police

Kalaivani Vs State Rep. by