Disposed

P.K. Ravikumar v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC1 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/1499/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge bench under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC directed the second respondent to expedite an enquiry. The court held that if a cognizable offence is revealed, a case must be registered; otherwise, parties must approach the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to expedite the enquiry and register a case if cognizable offence is found; otherwise, direct parties to the Civil Court.

P.K. Ravikumar Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.02.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶4

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1499 of 2018

P.K.Ravikumar

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Superintendant of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, Rediyappatti Police Station, Tiruchuli Taluk,

¶10

Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to issue a direction to the respondents to conduct enquiry on petitioner's complaint dated 05.01.2018 and consequently register a Criminal case within the time limit fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Mark J Jackson For Respondents : Mr.Prabu Ramachandran, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

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 05.01.2018.

¶15

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has entered into a sale agreement with one Vellaisamy and Karthikai Devi, with regard to purchasing a property and in pursuance of the said agreement, the petitioner has paid Rs.4,00,000/- as advance and subsequently, the aforesaid persons have returned a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and sold the property to third parties. He further submitted that when the petitioner demanded to pay the balance amount, the aforesaid persons criminally intimidated him and hence he has lodged a complaint before the second respondent on 05.01.2018, but, so far no action has been taken.

¶16

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that after receipt of the complaint an enquiry has been commenced and the proposed accused persons were called for enquiry and they have sent a notice through an Advocate stating that the issue is relating to civil dispute and hence, the Police did not take any action on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complaint given by the petitioner. He further submitted that the said complaint is still pending for enquiry.

¶17

¶18

4.Recording the aforesaid submissions, the second respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and if the enquiry reveals any cognizable offence, then he has to register a case and proceed further in accordance with law. In case, the enquiry reveals only a civil dispute, then he has to direct the parties to approach the Civil Court and work out their remedies in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CSII) /True Copy/

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar To

¶22

1.The Superintendant of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶23

2.The Inspector of Police, Rediyappatti Police Station, Tiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶24

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

¶25

+One cc to Mr.Mark J.Jackson, Advocate, SR.No.45831

¶26

sss

¶27

RL/5C/2P/CVC/SAR2/1/3/2018

¶28

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1499 of 2018

¶29

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

¶30

01.02.2018

P.K. Ravikumar v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K. Ravikumar 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

S. Vignesh Vs the Commissioner of Police

C.Patchaiammal, Vs the Inspector of Police

D. Selvaraj, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Umeshnathan Vs R.Meenakshi

D.Ramaraj Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

National Institute of Siddha Vs the Commissioner of Police