Disposed

R.Vijay Prashanth v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Feb 2016CRL OP/875/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought a direction to register a complaint against relatives. Finding petitioner's documents unsatisfactory, the Court directed the police to enquire afresh and register a case if warranted, citing Lalitha Kumari.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to enquire into the matter afresh and register a case if any cognizable offence is made out.

R.Vijay Prashanth Vs the Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.02.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Criminal Original Petition No.875 of 2016

¶6

R.Vijay Prashanth : Petitioner

¶7

1.The Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar.

¶8

2.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District. : Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1^st respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 04.10.2015, inquire into the same and take action in accordance with law.

¶10

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, directing the 1^st respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 04.10.2015, inquire into the same and take action in accordance with law.

¶11

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the petitioner has given a complaint dated 04.10.2015 against his father-in-law, mother-in-law and brotherin-law, the respondent has not shown any interest to enquire the matter and to register the complaint. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present petition for the relief as stated above.

¶12

3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that after the complaint, the petitioner has appeared and given a statement

¶13

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

¶14

stating that he is not pursuing this Criminal Original Petition and he is ready to approach the Family Court to work out his remedy and hence, he prayed for dismissal.

¶15

4.Considering the rival submission made on both sides, this Court is not satisfied with the document filed by the petitioner. Hence, the 1^st respondent is directed to enquire the matter afresh 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

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

¶17

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
mps
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Maraimalai Nagar.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Madras.

¶18

+1 cc to M/s. For and Fair Associates sr.7049

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.875 of 2016

¶20

aa18/02/2016

¶21

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

R.Vijay Prashanth v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Vijay Prashanth v. the Inspector 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

A.Ronald Santha Kumar Vs the State Rep by

Kursheet Sherif @ Akshar Vs State Rep. by

D.Gopalakrishnan Vs R.J.Veeraraghavan

M/S.Fullerton India Credit Vs the Commissioner of Police

Mr.R.Prakasam Vs the State Rep. by

T.Muthu Krishnan Vs the Inspector of Police