Disposed

Snekarani, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC28 Sept 2016CRL OP(MD)/6758/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the 2nd respondent police to expedite the enquiry and complete it within two weeks, furnishing a closure report within a week if applicable, while invoking the law laid down in Lalitha Kumari case regarding cognizable offences.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to expedite enquiry within two weeks and file closure report within one week if applicable.

Snekarani, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.09.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6758 of 2016

¶6

Snekarani

¶7

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶8

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2^nd respondent to register a case, based on the petitioner's complaint dated 17.01.2016 and investigate the same and may also direct to file the final report within a stipulated time.

¶10

For respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner, dated 17.01.2016.

¶13

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶14

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on instructions would submit that the petition enquiry is pending.

¶15

4.In view of the above submission, the 2^nd respondent is

¶16

directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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

¶17

¶18

made out, the 2^nd 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 take action in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

Sd/ Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶21

/TRUE COPY/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶25

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶26

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

¶27

+1cc to M/S.K.P.Narayana Kumar, Advocate in SR.No.57145

¶28

Crl.O.P(MD)No.6758 of 2016 28.09.2016

¶29

PJL

¶30

PA/SK-SKN/14.10.2016/2P/5C

¶31

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

Snekarani, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Snekarani, 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

R.Soundarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Ennatchimuthu Vs the Executive Divisional

P.Thirunavukkarasu Vs the Commissioner of Police

A. Solaiappan Vs the Director General of Police

R.Gopala Krishnan Vs the Inspector of Police