Disposed

R. Saravanan v. the Director

Madras HC15 Dec 2017CRL OP(MD)/17267/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought direction to register a case regarding alleged bribery by a Tahsildar. The court recorded that the Additional Public Prosecutor stated the complaint had been forwarded to the Vigilance department and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was closed after recording that the complaint was forwarded to the Vigilance Department. No specific order for registration or quashing was granted.

R. Saravanan Vs the Director — Corruption | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.12.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17267 of 2017

¶4

R.Saravanan ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Chennai – 16.

¶7

2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the 2^nd respondent to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 14.11.2017.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendren, APP.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This petition has been filed to direct the 2^nd respondent to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 14.11.2017.

¶12

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendren, Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondents herein.

¶13

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein seeking free patta land for the poor village people and it is alleged that the said Tahsildar demanded bribe sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for each patta. But the petitioner did not given the said amount. Hence, he had given a several complaint and his last complaint dated 08.12.2017. Therefore, the present petition is filed to direct the 2^nd respondent to register the case on the basis of the petitioner complaint.

¶14

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit on instructions that the said complaint dated 08.12.2017 was received and the said complaint was forwarded to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Head https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quarters, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Chennai-16 under letter No.116 of 2017/C.j.f./Sivagangai, dated 11.12.2017 by

¶15

¶16

the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Sivagangai. Copy of the letter is also produced for perusal.

¶17

5.Recording the above statement of the learned Additional

¶18

Public Prosecutor as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶21

/True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1.The Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Chennai – 16.

¶25

2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶26

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

¶27

+1cc to M/S.S.Muthukumar, Advocate SR.No. 93015

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17267 of 2017 15.12.2017

¶29

gns

¶30

JM/JC/SAR 1/03.01.2018/2P/5C

¶31

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

R. Saravanan v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Saravanan v. the Director

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

Chandramani Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Mani Vs the Inspector of Police

Sivakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Raju Vs a.Krishnakumar

M. Jayaguru Vs the Inspector of Police

K.S Thangapandiyan Alias Vs P. Shanmugaraja Pandiaan