Disposed

Mr.R.Prakasam v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC3 Feb 2016CRL OP/558/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Crl. O.P. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the 2nd respondent police to register an FIR and investigate a complaint regarding impersonation and forgery. Court directed the police to expedite enquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence is made out.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to expedite the enquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence is made out.

Mr.R.Prakasam Vs the State Rep. by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.02.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Criminal Original Petition No.558 of 2016

¶6

R.Prakasam ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
The State represented by
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal. ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2 nd respondent police to
register a case on the basis of the complaint of the
petitioner dated 30.09.2015 by entering an FIR and to
expeditiously investigate the same in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhakaran
For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias
Additional Public Prosecutor

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, directing the 2^nd respondent police to register a case on the basis of the complaint dated 30.09.2015 and to investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶10

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the proposed accused after impersonation forged the document, obtained patta and created a Partition Deed. Even though the complaint has been received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, the 2^nd respondent, he has not shown any interest to investigate the matter and to register an FIR. Hence, the petitioner has come https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ up with the present petition for the relief as stated above.

¶11

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

¶12

4.Considering the rival submission made on both sides, the second 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.

¶13

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

¶14

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mps
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Madras.
+1cc to Mr.G.Prabhakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.6978
Crl.O.P.No.558 of 2016
SAI(CO)
CA(10/02/2016)

¶15

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

Mr.R.Prakasam v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.R.Prakasam v. the 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

A.Ronald Santha Kumar Vs the State Rep by

Kursheet Sherif @ Akshar Vs State Rep. by

D.Gopalakrishnan Vs R.J.Veeraraghavan

R.Vijay Prashanth Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Fullerton India Credit Vs the Commissioner of Police

T.Muthu Krishnan Vs the Inspector of Police