Disposed

R.Gurusamy v. the District Superintendent of

Madras HC22 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/2260/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Original Petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the second respondent to inquire into a complaint regarding a fraudulent property sale and register a case. The court directed the respondent to conduct an inquiry and register a case if it uncovers a cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to enquire into the complaint and register a case if it reveals any cognizable offence.

R.Gurusamy Vs the District Superintendent of — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.2260 of 2018

¶7

R.Gurusamy ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The District Superintendent of Police, O/o. District Superintendent of Police. Dindigul District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Special Cell, Dindigul District.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the second respondent to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 26.12.2017 and investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gururaj For Respondents : Mr.Prabu Ramachandran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent, to register the case based on the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 26.12.2017.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proposed accused has sold a property in favour of the petitioner's wife and it was subsequently found that he is not the owner and hence, the petitioner has lodged a complaint in person before the first and third respondents on 16.12.2017, no action so far taken on that complaint and hence, the petitioner has sent the complaint to the second respondent by Post (RPAD) on 26.12.2017, but, so far, no action has been taken.

¶17

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has submitted that the petitioner has sent the complaint by Post and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the same has been received by the second respondent on 26.12.2017 and the enquiry is still pending.

¶18

¶19

Considering the aforesaid submissions, the second respondent

¶20

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

¶21

5.With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

To 1.The District Superintendent of Police, O/o. District Superintendent of Police. Dindigul District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Special Cell, Dindigul District. 3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to M/S.M.Gururaj, Advocate SR.No. 50796 CRL.O.P.(MD)No.2260 of 2018 22.02.2018 LS JM/SKN RSK/SAR 3/06.03.2018/2P/6C

¶23

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

R.Gurusamy v. the District Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Gurusamy v. the District Superintendent of

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

Jobu @ Ramkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Stephen, Vs the Inspector of Police

M.K.Kannan Vs M.Gopika

Ochubalu Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

R. Gunasekaran Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Jothimani Vs the Inspector of Police