Dismissed

S.Mookaiah v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC5 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/1668/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order wherein the court directed the third respondent to expedite the pending Criminal Symposium Report (CSR) under Section 156(3) CrPC. The court further directed that if the enquiry reveals a cognizable offence, the police must register the case based on the petitioner's complaint regarding land trespass.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to expedite the enquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence is made out.

S.Mookaiah Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.02.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1668 of 2018

S.Mookaiah

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur, Madurai District.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue order of direction directing the 3^rd respondent to register the case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 12.01.2018.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pakalavan For Respondents : Mr.Prabu Ramachandran

¶16

Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition has been filed to direct the third respondent to register a case based upon the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 12.01.2018.

¶19

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proposed accused persons have trespassed into the petitioner's land and caused damage to the value of Rs.5,000/- and also attempted to assault the petitioner and hence, the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 12.01.2018, but so far, the third respondent has not registered a case.

¶20

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has submitted that after receipt of the complaint, CSR.No.23 of 2018 has been issued and the enquiry is still pending.

¶21

4.Recording the aforesaid submissions, the third respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and if the enquiry reveals any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cognizable offence is made out, he has to register a case and proceed in accordance with law.

¶22

¶23

5.With the aforesaid observation, this criminal original petition is disposed of.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai, Madurai District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur, Madurai District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1668 of 2018 05.02.2018 rmk JM/SKN RSK/SAR 1/16.02.2018/2P/5C

¶25

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

S.Mookaiah v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mookaiah 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

B.Chandra Prabha Vs the Inspector of Police

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

Thangaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Pandiarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Eswaradhass Vs the Superintendent of Police