Petitioner sought direction to include names of two accused in an FIR under Section 482 CrPC. The single-judge bench held that investigation was at a premature stage and the petition was an abuse of the process of Court, ordering dismissal.
Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
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: 07.04.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA
Crl.O.P.No.7752 of 2016
S.Sangeetha ... Petitioner
Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police Santhavasal Police Station, Arani Circle, Tiruvannamalai District. ... Respondent
Prayer :
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the respondent police to include the name of the accused persons namely 1) Mr.Chinnarasu, S/o.Velu and 2)Thoplan @ Saminathan, S/o.Pillaiyar Gounder, Vellur Village, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District in the F.I.R. in Crime No.97/2016 on the file of the Respondent Police as mentioned in the petitioner's complaint dated 26.03.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sannjay
For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking a direction to the respondent police to include some of the accused in Crime No.97 of 2016 which was registered on 28.03.2016.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has given complaint on 26.03.2016, but case has been registered on 28.03.2016. He would further submit that though complaint has been given as against six persons, the names of four persons alone find place in the F.I.R. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present petition for the relief as stated above.
3.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
4.Considering the submissions made on both sides and on perusal of typed set of papers, it is known that case has been registered only on 28.03.2016. Hence, investigation is in premature stage. Therefore, this Court feels that this petition is filed with a view to abuse the process of Court.
5.Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. pri
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Santhavasal Police Station,
Arani Circle,
Tiruvannamalai District.
2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu State
Legal Services Authority,
High Court, Chennai 104.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Sannjay, Advocate SR 22861
pvs(co)
prk25/4 Crl.O.P.No.7752 of 2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal original petition seeking direction to include accused in an FIR at a premature stage amounts to abuse of the process of Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Sangeetha
State Rep. by Inspector of Police Santhavasal Police Station
R. Mala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
