Disposed

M.Rajeshwari, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC9 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/1862/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the second respondent (Inspecting Police, Kottar Station) to expedite an inquiry regarding a domestic dispute involving door breaking and misconduct. If the inquiry reveals a cognizable offence, the court ordered a case to be registered.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to expedite the enquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence is revealed.

M.Rajeshwari, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.02.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1862 of 2018

M.Rajeshwari

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondent to register a case on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 31.12.2017.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Elango

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.Prabhu Ramachandran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Petition has been filed by the petitioner, to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 31.12.2017.

¶17

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's son married one Sutha and thereafter, they have been residing in a separate house and that being so, on 26.12.2017, the petitioner's daughter-in-law came to the petitioner's house and broken the door and stayed there and when the same was questioned by the petitioner, she criminally intimated her and hence, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner before the second respondent on 26.12.2017, but no action has been taken, hence, another complaint has been sent to the respondents 1 and 2 by a Registered Post on 31.12.2017 and even thereafter, no action has been taken.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has submitted that enquiry has been pending before the second respondent.

¶19

¶20

4.Considering the aforesaid submissions, the second respondent

¶21

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.

¶22

4.With the aforesaid submissions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶28

The Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

AE/JC/SAR2/08.03.2018/2P/4C

¶32

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1862 of 2018 09.02.2018

¶33

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

M.Rajeshwari, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajeshwari, 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

M.Leelavathi Vs Superindent of Police

Gopal Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Muniyasamy Vs the Superintendent of Police

Jinna Mohammed Vs the Inspector of Police

Semraj, Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Arunkumar, Vs Assistant Commissioner of