This order directed the respondents to expedite the enquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence was made out, relying on Lalitha Kumari.
Expediture of enquiry and direction to register a case if a cognizable offence is made out.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA
Criminal Original Petition No.56 of 2016
M/s.Fullerton India Credit Company Limited
represented by its Legal Manager,
Mr.K.Suryamoorthi,
No.307, Megh Towers,
Poonamallee High Road,
Maduravoyil,
Chennai-600 095. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
B-6, Peelamedu Police Station,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to register an FIR based on the complaint dated 08.04.2015 against Mr.P.Gopalasamy, G.Saravanan and Mrs.S.Senthamil Selvi and investigate the matter and submit a report.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Namasivayam
For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor
The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, directing the respondents to register an FIR based on the complaint dated 08.04.2015 and investigate the matter and submit a report.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proposed accused borrowed money from the petitioner, on the basis of the Settlement Deed, executed in their favour, but, after obtaining the loan, the Settlement Deed has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ revoked. Hence, the petitioner has given a complaint to the
1st respondent on 08.04.2015 but, 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.
3.Resisting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner has given a complaint to the first respondent on 08.04.2015 and the same has been forwarded to the 2nd respondent and the enquiry is going on.
4.Considering the rival submission made on both sides, the 2nd 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 Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the
above direction.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mps
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
B-6, Peelamedu Police Station,
Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Madras.
+1cc to Mr.S.Namasivayam, Advocate, S.R.No.7025
Crl.O.P.No.56 of 2016
SAI(CO) CA(11/02/2016)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the complaint deserves to be registered as an offence and investigated by the respondents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P & othersRelied on¶15
Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P & others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Fullerton India Credit Company Limited
The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore
The Inspector of Police, B-6, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore
R. Mala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
