Allowed

Amaravathi, F/a 39 Years, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC19 Nov 2018CRL OP/19433/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner sought a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to inquire into the unnatural death of her daughter. The court held that the inquiry must precede by an FIR under Section 174 Cr.P.C and directed the police to register such an FIR and intimate the Executive Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Respondent police directed to register an FIR under Section 174 Cr.P.C, intimate the Executive Magistrate, and follow prescribed procedure.

Amaravathi, F/a 39 Years, Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 19.11.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.19433 of 2018

¶6

Amaravathi ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, *North Chennai, Thondaiyarpet, Chennai.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, M-2, Madhavaram Milk Colony P.S., Madhavaram,

¶10

Chennai. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to direct the first respondent, RDO, Thiruvallur District, to conduct an inquiry into the unnatural death of Jayalakshmi, W/o.M.Saravanan, who died on 30.04.2018, within one year after her marriage and to submit his report before the second respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the first respondent to conduct an inquiry into the unnatural death of petitioner's daughter, who died on 30.04.2018.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on 15.02.2018, the petitioner received a phone call and the petitioner was informed that his daughter was not well. On reaching the place, the petitioner was not able to find his daughter. The husband was not giving any convincing answer with regard to availability of the petitioner's daughter. Thereafter, the petitioner came to understand that the petitioner's daughter sustained head injury on 15.02.2018 and was admitted in the hospital. Subsequently, she died on 30.04.2018. In the mean time, the child was also born.

¶17

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

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's daughter has been attacked by her husband and the mother-in-law and as a result of the same, the petitioner's daughter sustained injury and had ultimately died on 30.04.2018. When a complaint was given to the respondent police, they have issued a CSR receipt, in CSR.No.320 of 2018, on 03.06.2018 and subsequently, no action has been taken. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that necessary petition is being filed before the concerned Magistrate Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for a direction to the respondent police to register an FIR and to conduct an investigation. In the mean time, this petition has been filed for a direction to the RDO to conduct an enquiry.

¶19

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made

¶20

by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

The relief as sought for by the petitioner can be granted only if the respondent police registered an FIR, in this case, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner complaints unnatural death of the petitioner's daughter, the respondent police can enquire into the same only by registering the FIR under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. On such registration of the FIR, the respondent police is duty bound to intimate about the incident to the nearest Executive Magistrate in order to hold inquest. However, the case has not reached that stage. Even though the CSR was given on 03.06.2018, the respondent police has not registered any FIR under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the question of directing the RDO to conduct an enquiry does not arise.

¶22

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent police is directed to register an FIR under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the respondent police shall intimate about the incident to the nearest Executive Magistrate and follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. It is left open to the petitioner to place all the facts, at the time of inquiry/investigation.

¶23

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

¶24

With the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX) Dated:06/12/2018 //True Copy//

¶26

Dated:06/12/2018 *Amended as per order dated 11.06.2019 made in Crl.M.P.No.7205/19 in Crl.O.P.No.19433/18 Sd/Assistant Registrar(Insp-Cell) Dated;12.06.2019

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

dss To 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Amended order to Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, be substituted for *North Chennai, Thondaiyarpet, Chennai. The order already despatched on 2. The Inspector of Police, 10/01/2019 M-2, Madhavaram Milk Colony P.S., Madhavaram, Chennai. 3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.E.J.Ayyappan, Advocate, S.R.No.78884

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.19433 of 2018 VD(Co) CS/11/12/2018 srg 13/06/2019

¶30

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

Amaravathi, F/a 39 Years, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amaravathi, F/a 39 Years, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

D.Krishnamurthy Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Prabakaran Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Shanmugam Vs State Rep. by

P.Senthilkumar Vs M.P.Murugavel

Raji, S/o.Duraiswamy Vs State of Tamilnadu

R.Jayaraman, M/Aged About Vs K.Ganesan