Disposed

A.J.Rafeena v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Madras HC18 Mar 2016CRL OP/6024/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the Deputy Commissioner and the Woman Police Station Inspector to expedite enquiry based on her February 26, 2016 complaint since no investigation was initiated despite the complaint being transferred.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent (Inspector of Police) is directed to expedite the enquiry and register a case if any cognizable offence is made out on the basis of the petitioner's complaint.

A.J.Rafeena Vs the Deputy Commissioner of — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.03.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6024 of 2016

¶6

A.J.Rafeena .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Washermenpet Range,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
W-14 All Women Police Station,
Thiruvotriyur, Chennai – 19. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent to register the case against the complaint preferred by the petitioner on 26.02.2016 before the Commissioner of Police in C.No.844/COP/Visitors/2016 and the same has been transferred to the respondents 1 and 2 subsequently.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ashokkumar

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias

¶10

Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent to register a case pertaining to the petitioner's complaint dated 26.02.2016.

¶13

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the second respondent on 26.02.2016. But the second 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, as investigation is going on, 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.

¶17

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

¶18

cse Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Washermenpet Range, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
W-14 All Women Police Station,
Thiruvotriyur, Chennai – 19.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
+ 1 cc to Mr.G.Ashokkumar, Advocate Sr 17487
KR/24/3/16
Crl.O.P.No.6024 of 2016

¶19

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

A.J.Rafeena v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.J.Rafeena v. the Deputy Commissioner of

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

G.Uthaman Vs Murugan

Tmt.a.Anitha Vs C.Ravichandran

Mrs.Gowri Vs P.Preneetha

Lakshmi, Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

S. Manikandan, Vs State by the Inspector of

K. Sathiskumar, Vs S. Megalam