Disposed

S.Swathy v. State Rep by

Madras HC5 Apr 2016CRL OP/7301/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal original petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the police to register a case and investigate based on a prior complaint. The court directed the respondent to expedite the enquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence is made out, following the dictum in Lalitha Kumari.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and register a case, if any cognizable offence is made out.

S.Swathy Vs State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.04.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7301 of 2016

¶6

S.Swathy ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep.by The Inspector of Police, W-32, All Women Police Station, Madipakkam, Chennai. ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 28.01.2016 in CSR No.34 of 2016 and investigate the case in accordance with law.

¶10

For Petitioner :M/s.RRN Legal For Respondent :Mr.C.Emalias

¶11

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, directing the respondent to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 28.01.2016 in CSR No.34 of 2016 and investigate the case in accordance with law.

¶14

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has given a complaint to the respondent as early as on 28.01.2016, however, the respondent has not shown any interest to enquire the matter and to register an FIR. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief.

¶15

3.At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that based on the complaint given by the petitioner in C.S.R.No.34 of 2016, petition enquiry is going on.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
W-32, All Women Police Station,
Madipakkam,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Madras.
ppa(co)
prk28/4 Crl.O.P.No.7301 of 2016

¶20

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

S.Swathy v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Swathy 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

V.Beema Rao Vs the State Rep. by

U.Baskar Vs the State Rep. by

R.Karthic @ Karthikeyan Vs Karthikeyan

Vasanthalingam Vs State Rep by

K.Kumar Vs T.Thavasiappan

A.Thirumugam Vs the Inspector of Police