Allowed

Mrs.J.Jayabackiyam @ v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC20 Jun 2016CRL OP/9927/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held it is a fit case for enquiry by the Land Grabbing Cell of the Central Crime Branch. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to file a fresh complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch within two weeks for allotment to the Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Cell.

Mrs.J.Jayabackiyam @ Vs the Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.06.2016

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.9927 of 2016

¶6

J.Jayabackiyam @ Jayabackiyavathi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, (Crime Branch), Selaiyur Police Station, Selaiyur, Chennai. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to direct the second respondent/Police to register the petitioner's complaint dated 29.09.2015 and to investigate the same in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Murthy For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶7

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct second respondent/Police to register the petitioner's complaint dated 29.09.2015 and to investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶9

On a reading of the complaint dated 29.10.2015, it is seen that this petitioner and his brother had entered into a joint venture agreement on 22.04.2014 with Divya Housing (Builders & Promoters) and had handed over their documents and records to the said Builder. It is alleged that the Builder did not make any construction, and instead they had illegally sold the property of the petitioner to one Lalitha Meenakshi for a

¶10

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

¶11

sale consideration of Rs.35,76,000/- by Document No.12474 of 2014 on 17.11.2014. Thus, there appears to be a prima facie case of land grabbing.

¶12

An earlier complaint has been given to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, who has forwarded the same to the Selaiyur Police Station.

¶13

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that, it is a fit case to be enquired into by Land Grabbing Cell of Central Crime Branch. Hence, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on a complaint being given, the same shall be allotted to the Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Cell, for enquiry and appropriate action.

¶14

With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ds To: 1.The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, (Crime Branch), Selaiyur Police Station, Selaiyur, Chennai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.D. Murthy, Advocate, S.R.No.34219 GJ(CO) EU(14/07/2016)

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.9927 of 2016

¶16

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

Mrs.J.Jayabackiyam @ v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.J.Jayabackiyam @ 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh @ Sureshbabu, Vs State Rep. by the Deputy

Mohamed Bilal Vs the State Rep by Its

K.Karthikeyan, Advocate, Vs P.Vasuki, W/O.Karthikeyan

S.P. Arumugam, Vs State Rep. by Its the

Dr. Kalavani, Vs State Rep. by the

R.Shanthi Vs the Inspector of Police