Disposed

K.Tamizh Mani v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC9 Feb 2016CRL OP/819/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in a Criminal Original Petition, directed the petitioner to appear before the police for enquiry and instructed the police to expedite the investigation and register a case if a cognizable offence is made out, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear for enquiry; police to expedite enquiry and register a case if cognizable offence is made out.

K.Tamizh Mani Vs the Commissioner of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.02.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. MALA

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.819 of 2016

¶6

K.Thamizh Mani .. Petitioner

¶7

.. Vs ..
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai Metropolitan Police,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Madipakkam,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the
respondent police to register a case on the complaint dated
31.12.2015 given by the petitioner and investigate the same
according to law expeditiously.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.G.Anbarasu For Respondents: Mr.C.Emalias

¶9

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, directing the respondent police to register a case on the basis of the complaint dated 31.12.2015 given by him and investigate the same according to law expeditiously.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has given a complaint to the second respondent police as early as on 31.12.2015, but, however, the second 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.

¶13

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

¶14

Resisting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that as soon as the second respondent police received the complaint, they issued a notice to the petitioner calling him for enquiry and though the notice has been received by the wife of the petitioner, the petitioner has not appeared for enquiry.

¶15

Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, the petitioner is directed to appear before the third respondent on 15.02.2016 and co-operate for enquiry and the third respondent police 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.

¶16

With the above direction, this Criminal Original
Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Jrl
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai Metropolitan Police,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Madipakkam,
Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to M/s. V.G. Anbarasu, Advocate Sr.8292
CRL.O.P.No.819 of 2016
SR(CO)
Eu 12.02.2016

¶17

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

K.Tamizh Mani v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Tamizh Mani v. the Commissioner of Police

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

Munusamy Reddie Vs Superintendent of Police

P.Ravi Vs the Superintendent of Police

N.D.Sukumar Vs State Rep. by

A.Prakash Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sujeet Singh Vs the State Rep by

Senthil Kumar Vs K.K.Sathishkumar