Allowed

R.Seralathan v. State Rep by

Madras HC10 Feb 2021CRL OP/20261/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent police to take action and conduct an enquiry against specific officers based on serious allegations made in the complaint of a government servant who had been acquitted. The enquiry was to be completed within four weeks of receiving a fresh representation from the petitioner. This was a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to initiate action against the police officers and complete the enquiry within four weeks from the receipt of a fresh representation from the petitioner.

R.Seralathan Vs State Rep by — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

CRL.OP.No.20261 of 2018

¶6

R.Seralathan ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State Rep. by The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City Police, Vepery, Chennai. ....Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondent to conduct enquiry as directed by of the Learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate by her order in C.C.No.2638/2016 dated 19.04.2018 and initiate action against the then Inspector of Police Mr.Thomson Zavier and the then Assistant Commissioner, Washermanpet, N4 Fishing Harbor Police Station, Chennai, within time fixed by the Court and also intimate the result of the said enquiry to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.T.Narendiran

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent police to initiate action against the concerned police officers inobedience to the judgment passed by the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town in C.C.No.2638 of 2016, dated 19.04.2018.

¶14

2.The petitioner who was a Government servant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in a case registered in Crime No.668 of 2016 and the petitioner was acquitted from all charges. The learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, while disposing of this case, took into consideration certain serious allegations that were made against the two officers and directed the respondent to initiate proceedings against them. Relevant portions in the judgment is extracted hereunder:

¶15

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

¶16

mJkl;Lkpd;wp mg;nghJ gzpapypUe;j jpU/jhk;rd; nrtpah; vd;w Ma;thsh; kw;Wk; cjtp Mizah; Mfpnahhpd; fl;lhaj;jpd;nghpy; Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapy; ifbahg;gk; bra;jjhf m/rh/7 rhl;rpaj;jpy; bjhptpj;Js;sJ fLikahd Fw;wr;rhl;L (serious allegation) Mfk;/ vdnt ,ij Fwpj;J Kiwahd tprhuiz rk;ge;jg;gl;l Jiw mjpfhhpfshy; elj;jntz;lpaJ ,d;wpaikahjjhFk;/ vdnt , t;tHf;fpd; jPh;g;g[iu efy; kw;Wk; m/rh/7 mspj;Js;s rhl;rpaj;jpd; efy; Mfpatw;iw brd;id fhty;Jiw Mizah; mth;fSf;F chpa nky; eltlpf;iff;F mDg;gpitf;FkhW ,e;ePjpkd;wk; cj;jutpLfpwJ/ vdnt nknygj;jpfspy; tphpthf Muhag;gl;ljpd; tpisthf vjphpapd; kPjhd ,jr gphpt[ 294(b) kw;Wk; gphpt[ 4 bgz;fSf;bfjpuhd td;bfhLik jLg;g[ rl;lj;jpd; fPHhd Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; muRj;jug;gpy; re;njfj;jpw;F mg;ghw;gl;L epU:gpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;khdpf;fpwJ/

¶17

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that till date the respondent has not taken any action against the concerned officers and left with no other option, the present petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

¶18

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶19

5.The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the respondent along with a copy of the judgment in C.C.No.2638 of 2016, dated 19.04.2018. The respondent immediately on receipt of the representation shall initiate action inobedience to the directions issued by the Court below and the said process shall be completed, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner shall also to be put on notice at the time of enquiry.

¶20

6.This criminal original petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

ssr

¶25

¶26

The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶27

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

¶28

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City Police, Vepery, Chennai.

¶29

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶30

+3cc to Mr.V.T.Narendiran, Advocate Sr.7528

¶31

CRL.OP.No.20261 of 2018
ssi[co]
srg 09/03/2021

¶32

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

R.Seralathan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Seralathan v. State Rep by

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

Senthil @ Senthil Kumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

K.Nanadagopal Chetty Vs Shivpprasadh

T.Thiyagarajan Vs State Rep by

N.Jeyachandran Vs the Village Administrative Officer

Rajeswari Vs the State Rep.by

K.Prabhakaran Vs the State Represented by