Dismissed

Dr.P.K.Palanisamy v. the Director

Madras HC22 Jul 2019CRL OP/17744/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction under section 482 Cr.P.C. to register a complaint regarding disproportionate assets. Respondent submitted a report stating the matter had been dropped as assets were proportionate. Court treated the petition as closed without granting the direction, granting liberty to proceed further.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law; no direction to register the case was given.

Dr.P.K.Palanisamy Vs the Director — Corruption | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated 22.07.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.OP.No.17744 of 2019 Dr.P.K.Palanisamy .. Petitioner Vs The Director, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, 293, M.K.N.Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016. .. Respondent

¶7

Prayer:- This Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 03.10.2018.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja
For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakaran, APP
ORDER

¶9

The petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondent to

¶10

register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 03.10.2018 against one Dr.T.Senthakrishna in respect of acquiring assets disproportionate to her known source of income.

¶11

2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

¶12

the petitioner had sent a complaint on 03.10.2018, and since, no action has

¶13

been taken by the respondent so far, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction.

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

¶16

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.

¶17

ssi

¶18

3 The respondent/Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption has filed a Status Report which is taken on record.

¶19

4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶20

respondent would submit that a discreet enquiry was conducted and since it revealed that the assets are proportionate to the known source of income of

¶21

Dr.T.Senthakrishna and her husband including the private clinic income during

¶22

the relevant period they have not caused any further action. He would on instructions from the officer present would further submit that the respondent are not having any intention to proceed further on the complaint and that the matter has been dropped.

¶23

5 In view of the Status Report and the submissions made by the

¶24

respondent the petition stands closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law.

¶25

22.07.2019 (1/2)

¶26

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No ssi

¶27

To:

¶28

1.The Director, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, 293, M.K.N.Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

¶29

Crl.OP.No.17744 of 2019

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

Dr.P.K.Palanisamy v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.P.K.Palanisamy v. the Director

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

K.Rajkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Devathan Vs the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption

Srinivasakumar Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Rajesh Vs The inspector of police

Rajan Vs State Rep by

N.Raghavulu Naidu Vs the State Rep.by