Disposed

M.Leelavathi v. Superindent of Police

Madras HC8 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/1118/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction under Section 482 CrPC to register an FIR regarding her aunt's attempted suicide and property damage. The Supreme Court noted that the police closed the complaint after a settlement regarding property but disputed the effect on the suicide charge. The court disposed of the petition without issuing a direction.

What did the court decide?

No direction granted; petition disposed of with liberty to avail other remedies.

M.Leelavathi Vs Superindent of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 08.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

CRL.O.P(MD)No.1118 of 2018

¶6

M.Leelavathi ... Petitioner

¶7

The Superintendent of Police, Pudhukottai District, Pudhukottai.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Alangudi Police Station, Pudhukottai District. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent police officials to register the complaint against the proposed accused on the complaint of the petitioner, dated 09.11.2016.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sevugaraja

¶11

For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents, to register a case, based on the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 09.11.2016.

¶14

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's aunt attempted to commit suicide by consuming kerosene, since the proposed accused trespassed in to the petitioner's house and caused damage worth about Rs.1 lakh and criminally intimidated. He further submitted that the petitioner's aunt was admitted in hospital and hence a complaint was lodged before the second respondent on 09.11.2016, but, so far, no action has been taken.

¶15

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that after receipt of the complaint, an enquiry has been conducted and during enquiry, the petitioner appeared before the

¶16

second respondent and gave a written statement, requesting the second respondent not to take any action on her complaint and recording her statement the second respondent has closed the complaint.

¶17

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, has

¶18

submitted that the said settlement was arrived at only with regard to the property dispute and not with regard to the attempt to commit suicide.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. It is open to the petitioner, to avail any other remedy, which is available under law.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(Crl side)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Superintendent of Police, Pudhukottai District, Pudhukottai.

¶26

The Inspector of Police, Alangudi Police Station, Pudhukottai District.

¶27

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

¶28

Ls/das

¶29

AE/CVC/SAR3/07.03.2018/2P/4C

¶30

CRL.O.P(MD)No.1118 of 2018 08.02.2018

¶31

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

M.Leelavathi v. Superindent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Leelavathi v. Superindent 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

Paribak Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.T.Ramakrishnan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Caroline Getsy Vs the Inspector of Police

Gopal Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Muniyasamy Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Perumal, Vs the Superintendent of Police