Dismissed

Kaliyaperumal, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC21 Feb 2019CRL OP/6198/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed an original petition under Section 482 CrPC to set aside police non-FIR closure order and direct registration. Court held an appeal against inquest report lies incompetent and not maintainable in High Court thus dismissed the petition. It is open to file private complaint before competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Petition to set aside closure order and direct FIR registration was dismissed with no consequential relief.

Kaliyaperumal, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.02.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6198 of 2018

Kaliyaperumal

...Petitioner

-Vs-

The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti – Land Grabbing Cell,
Villupuram.
3. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Villupuram. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the 2^nd respondent in closing the enquiry on the complaint of the petitioner dated 24.07.2017 and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to register the FIR and to investigate the same and to file a final report within the stipulated time.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶13

Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the 2^nd respondent in closing the enquiry on the complaint of the petitioner dated 24.07.2017 and for consequential relief.

¶16

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶17

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

¶18

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that only after detailed enquiry, the 3^rd respondent police have closed the complaint of the petitioner on 19.02.2018.

¶19

4.It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent/ police has conducted a detailed enquiry and closed the complaint by an order dated 19.02.2018. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said report, it is open to the petitioner to file a private complaint before the competent authority and it cannot be challenged here.

¶20

3.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition and the same is dismissed.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ay/vsn
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti – Land Grabbing Cell,
Villupuram.

¶22

The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Villupuram.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate SR.No.16418
Crl.O.P.No.6198 of 2018

¶23

MR(CO) GMY(27/03/2019)

¶24

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

Kaliyaperumal, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaliyaperumal, 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

Sundara Vinayagam Vs the State Rep. by

J.Krishnamoorthy Vs State Rep. by

Munusamy Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Karthik Vs the State Rep by

Perumal, Aged 70 Years Vs State by

M.Athikesavan Vs the State Rep by