Disposed

Selvaraj v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC2 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/1383/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposes of a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioner sought direction to the police to register a case after complaints of property damage and threats. The Supreme Court directed the Second Respondent to expedite the enquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence is found.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Second Respondent to expedite the enquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence is found.

Selvaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.02.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1383 of 2018

Selvaraj

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Thevarkulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to issue a direction, directing the second respondent Police to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 09.01.2018, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sankar For Respondents : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu

¶14

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, to direct the second respondent to register a case, based upon the complaint given by the petitioner dated 09.01.2018.

¶17

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of certain properties and since the proposed accused has caused damage to the petitioner's property, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.22748 of 2016, for granting permission to survey his land and this Court has allowed the said writ petition and accordingly, the petitioner has surveyed his land and thereafter the proposed accused threatening the petitioner and also used filthy language on 07.01.2018 and hence, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the second respondent on 09.01.2018, but so far no action has been taken.

¶18

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the enquiry is still pending.

¶19

4.Considering the aforesaid submissions, the second respondent

¶20

¶21

is directed to expedite the enquiry and if the enquiry reveals any cognizable offence, then he has registered a case and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶22

5.With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar (Crl.side)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶28

The Inspector of Police, Thevarkulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶29

SSS

¶30

TE/GT/SAR-4 : 26/02/2018 : 2P/4C

¶31

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1383 of 2018 02.02.2018

¶32

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

Selvaraj v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvaraj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umeshnathan Vs R.Meenakshi

D.Ramaraj Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

National Institute of Siddha Vs the Commissioner of Police

B.Chandra Prabha Vs the Inspector of Police

Nachiammal, W/O.Muruganantham Vs the Superintendent of Police

S. Nisar Ahamed, Vs the Superintendent of Police