Dismissed

S. Maria Rajina v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC23 Aug 2016CRL OP(MD)/11515/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought a direction to the police to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint. The court directed the second respondent to expedite the pending inquiry within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to expedite the inquiry and complete it within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

S. Maria Rajina Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.08.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11515 of 2016

¶7

S.Maria Rajina .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Dindigul, Dindigul District. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2^nd respondent to register the complaint given by the petitioner dated 05.07.2016 and take necessary action within a stipulated time.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Kannappan For respondents : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

It is an application seeking a direction to the second respondent to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 05.07.2016 .

¶15

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents.

¶16

3.According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), petition enquiry is pending before the second respondent.

¶17

4.There is no contention raised on the side of the petitioner that the complaint requires immediate registration of the case.

¶18

5.In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the

¶19

¶20

course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the second respondent police shall take action in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P & others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC). In case of closure of the complaint, a copy of the closure report be furnished to the petitioner within a week of such closure. On receipt of the same, it is open to the petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner known to law.

¶21

6.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar (Writs) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶25

2.The Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶26

3.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.A.R.KANNAPPAN, ADVOCATE IN SR.NO. 46570 ja-ck-09.09.2016-2p:5c Crl.O.P(MD)No.11515 of 2016

¶28

23.08.2016

¶29

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

S. Maria Rajina v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Maria Rajina v. the Superintendent 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

Yesu Nesan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

ÀNtony Muthu Vs the Director General of Police

Hemantkumar Ptilokani Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Ashok Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Kasirajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Anitha Varadhan Vs the Superintendent of Police