Disposed

S.Raja v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Mar 2016CRL OP/5424/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondent police to expedite the pending enquiry into the petitioner's complaint of 07.12.2015 and register a case if a cognizable offence is made out, invoking the dictum in Lalitha Kumari. The petitioner was directed to appear on 22.03.2016.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and register a case if any cognizable offence is made out. The petitioner is directed to appear on 22.03.2016.

S.Raja Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.03.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.5424 of 2016

¶6

S.Raja .. Petitioner Vs.

¶7

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent to register the case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 07.12.2015 and subsequently direct the respondent to enquire the case within a stipulated time framed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Shanmugam

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶11

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the respondent police to register a case pertaining to the petitioner's complaint dated 07.12.2015.

¶12

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondent on 07.12.2015. 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.

¶13

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

¶14

4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, as enquiry is going on, the respondent 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 respondent police for enquiry on 22.03.2016.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Taluk Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.G.Shanmugam, Advocate sr.16265
Crl.O.P.No.5424 of 2016
tej(CO)
srg(16/03/2016)

¶18

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

S.Raja v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Raja v. the Sub Inspector 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.Narayanan Vs State Rep. by

Nezeer Vs the Inspector of Police

Kalaivani Vs State Rep. by

A.E.Lakshman Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Madhu Vs State Rep. by

Selvan @ K.Ramachandran, Vs the State Rep.by the Deputy