Disposed

R.Brintha v. P.Duwarakesh

Madras HC19 Feb 2019CRL OP/1517/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought directions to take cognizance of a domestic violence complaint. The Court, noting the petitioner's non-appearance and service issues, directed them to cooperate with the Protection Officer before the Magistrate proceeds. The petition was disposed of with procedural directions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before the Protection Officer and cooperate; Magistrate to pass orders within 4 weeks of receiving the Protection Officer's report.

R.Brintha Vs P.Duwarakesh — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.02.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1517 of 2019

¶6

R. Brintha ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. P. Duwarakesh
2. K. Paramasivam
3. Suguntha
4. Kamesh
5. P.Eswari ..Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to issue directions to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur to take of cognizance and numbering the petitioner's complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondents 1 to 5.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.P.Kalimuthu
O R D E R

¶10

The prayer in the present petition is to issue directions to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur to take of cognizance and numbering the petitioner's complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondents 1 to 5.

¶11

This Court by an order dated 23.01.2019 has directed the registry to call for report from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur with regard to the status of the case and accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur has submitted a report dated 06.02.2019.

¶12

It is seen from the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur that the petitioner did not appear before the Protection Officer for enquiry. It is also stated in the report that the respondents were only appeared before the Protection Officer and co-operated for the enquiry and the summons served to the petitioner were returned twice with

¶13

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

¶14

endorsement 'Door locked" and further stated that only due to the non appearance of the petitioner, the case is kept pending before the Protection Officer.

¶15

In view of the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Protection Officer and also co-operate for fair enquiry. Consequently, on appearance of the petitioner before the Protection Officer, the Protection Officer shall submit a report to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

¶16

On receipt of such report from the Protection Officer, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur shall pass orders within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of such report from the Protection Officer.

¶17

With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition
stands disposed of.
ak
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Ambattur.
2. The Protection Officer, Tiruvallur
O/o. The District Collectorate.
Tiruallur..
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.P.Kalimuthu, Advocate, S.R.No.5232

¶18

CRL.O.P.No. 1517 of 2019

¶19

Kak(25/04/2019)

¶20

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

R.Brintha v. P.Duwarakesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Brintha v. P.Duwarakesh

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.Vimal Sekar@Vimala Sekar Vs the Inspector of Police

Govindarasu Vs State Rep.by

V.S.J.Dinakaran Vs the State Rep. by

N.Thenmozhi Vs the State Rep by Its

Usharani, Aged 62 Years, Vs State by

S.Kasthuri Vs the Superintendent of Police