Dismissed

Rev. J.Albert Selvaraj v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC2 Sept 2016CRL OP(MD)/16135/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court considered an application seeking direction to register a complaint. The court directed the second respondent to furnish the closure report showing the matter was closed as "civil in nature", after which the court closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to furnish a copy of the closure report to the petitioner.

Rev. J.Albert Selvaraj Vs the Superintendent… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.09.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16135 of 2016

¶7

J.Albert Selvaraj .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Superintendent of Police,

¶10

O/o. Superintendent of Police,

¶11

Pudukottai,

¶12

Pudukottai District.

¶13

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶14

Thirumayam Police Station,

¶15

Thirumayam,

¶16

Pudukottai District.

¶17

3.The Sub Inspector of Police,

¶18

Namanasamudram Police Station,

Namanasamudram,

Thirumayam Taluk,

Pudukottai District.

.. Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the Respondent No.3 to register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 13.08.2016 and proceed with the same as per law within the time frame fixed by this Court and pass such further or other orders.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan,

¶26

Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶27

ORDER

¶28

It is an application seeking a direction to the third respondent to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 13.08.2016.

¶29

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents.

¶30

¶31

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents would submit that the complaint of the petitioner has been enquired into and it has been closed as “civil in nature”.

¶32

4.In view of the above submission, the second respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the closure report to the petitioner, if not furnished already and on receipt of the same, it is open to the petitioner to take further action in accordance with law.

¶33

5.This Criminal Original Petition is accordingly closed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶36

/True Copy/

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

mj To

¶39

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶40

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirumayam Police Station, Thirumayam, Pudukottai District.

¶41

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Namanasamudram Police Station, Namanasamudram, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶42

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶43

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶44

+1CC to Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, Advocate Sr.nO.50226 GJM/KBm/22.9.16-2p-6c

¶45

Crl.O.P(MD)No.16135 of 2016 02.09.2016

¶46

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

Rev. J.Albert Selvaraj v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rev. J.Albert Selvaraj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.S.Mani Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Revathi Prema Roobarani Vs Ganesan

Chetan Desai, Director Vs M/S. Paramount Textile Mills

Palani S/O Kannappan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Lakshmanan Vs the Superintendent of Police

V. Aandathal, W/O.Veeraiah, Vs the Superintendent of Police