Disposed

S.Thiarviyaraj v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC16 Aug 2016CRL OP(MD)/14741/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to register a case. The court held that while immediate registration is not indicated, the police must expedite the inquiry within two weeks and provide a closure report within a week if no offence is found, citing Lalitha Kumari.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to expedite inquiry within two weeks and furnish closure report within a week if no offence is found.

S.Thiarviyaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.08.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶6

S.Thiraviyaraj .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State through 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, Pazhavoor Police Station, Pazhavoor, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2^nd respondent Police to register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 03.08.2016 in accordance with law.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu

¶12

For respondents : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan, 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 03.08.2016.

¶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.Nothing has been indicated to show 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 course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the

¶19

¶20

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 his remedy in the manner known to law.

¶21

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

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶24

/True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Superintendent of Police,

¶28

Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶29

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶30

Pazhavoor Police Station,

¶31

Pazhavoor, Tirunelveli District.

¶32

3.The Addl. Public Prosecutor,

¶33

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶34

Madurai.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.M.SubashBabu, Advocate SR.No.45073

¶36

gcg

¶37

sm:KP:31.08.2016:2P/5C

¶38

Crl.O.P(MD)No.14741 of 2016 16.08.2016

¶39

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

S.Thiarviyaraj v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Thiarviyaraj 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

S.P.Balakesari Vs the Inspector General of

Boominathan Vs T.R. Jeyaraman

Mohamed Rizwan Vs the Forest Range Officer

S.Muthu Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.Gnanasekaran Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.Hariharapandian Vs the Deputy Superintendent of