Dismissed

Karuppaiah, 30 Years v. the Vigilance Commissioner

Madras HC22 Jun 2018CRL OP/16021/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to register a complaint and initiate investigation. The Court found the petition lacked merit as the respondent authorities had already received the complaint and forwarded it for action.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking direction to register the complaint and investigate was dismissed.

Karuppaiah, 30 Years Vs the Vigilance Commissioner — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 22.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.16021 of 2018

¶6

Karuppaiah ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1 The Vigilance Commissioner,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department,
Secretariate,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2 The Director,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department,
Alandur,
Chennai-600 016.
3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the third respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 01.06.2018 and investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan For Respondents: Mr. K.Prabakar

¶11

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking direction of this Court to the respondent to register the complaint dated 01.06.2018.

¶14

2 The reading of the complaint indicates that during the year 2015 and 2016 somebody had misused the name of the defacto complainant to get tender and defaulted which has come to the knowledge of the petitioner recently. Therefore, he has given a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cell on 01.06.2018.

¶15

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

¶16

3 The perusal of the complaint and the affidavit in the criminal original petition does not disclose whether any impersonation has taken place or the petitioner herein to get rid of the legal liability has come out with fake complaint.

¶17

4 In any event, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department would submits that the complaint of the petitioner hereby was received on 04.06.2018 and same has been forwarded to the Director of Town Panchayats for necessary action vide letter dated 11.06.2018. Further, he would also submits that the petitioner has already been informed about this fact.

¶18

5 In the light of the above submissions, nothing survives in this petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpl
To
1 The Vigilance Commissioner,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department,
Secretariate,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2 The Director,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department,
Alandur,
Chennai-600 016.
3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
4 The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.16021 of 2018
PVS(CO
GSP(04/07/2018)

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.16021 of 2018

¶21

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

Karuppaiah, 30 Years v. the Vigilance Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppaiah, 30 Years v. the Vigilance Commissioner

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

M.Karthikeyan, M/42 Years Vs Deputy Inspector of Cell

Nvp Sharma, M/a 75 Yrs, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Ttv Dhinakaran Vs M.L.Ravi and 60 Others

S.Subramani, Aged 45 Years, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

R.Sakthivel, Aged 54 Years, Vs the State

K.S.Kalinga Rayan @Kalingaraju Vs State Rep by