Disposed

Muthukaruppan v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC23 Mar 2018CRL OP(MD)/3546/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Original Petitioner, a tomato dealer, sought a direction under Section 482 CrPC for the second respondent to register a case based on his complaint of theft and intimidation. The court directed the SI to expedite the pending inquiry and register a case if any cognizable offence is found. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to expedite the enquiry and register a case if the enquiry reveals any cognizable offence.

Muthukaruppan Vs the Commissioner of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.3546 of 2018

¶7

Muthukaruppan ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City Police, Madurai. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, (Law and Order), Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the second respondent to register the case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 07.02.2018.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai, for Mr.S.Muthalraj For Respondents : Mr.Prabu Ramachandran,

¶12

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to register a case, based on the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 07.02.2018.

¶15

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Tomato Whole Sale Dealer at Mattuthavani Vegetables Market and that being so, the proposed accused person without the knowledge of the petitioner has taken the boxes of tomato and when the same was questioned, the proposed accused abused the petitioner and also criminally intimidated him. Hence, the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 07.02.2018, but so far, no action has been taken.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

4.Considering 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City Police, Madurai.

¶26

2.The Sub Inspector of Police,

¶27

(Law and Order), Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai District.

¶28

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶29

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶30

Madurai.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.Na.Palaniyandi, Advocate, SR.No.57573

¶32

cp RL/5C/2P/RSK/SAR2/26/4/2018

¶33

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.3546 of 2018

¶34

23.03.2018

¶35

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

Muthukaruppan v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthukaruppan v. the Commissioner 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. Ravichandran Vs the Inspector of Police

Sithalakshmi Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.M.Raja Vs Thiru N.Suresh, Fit Person

P.Yesudian, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Hajar Beevi Vs the Inspector of Police

S.M.Arumugam, Vs the Superintendent of Police