Dismissed

Pavunkumar v. State Represented by

Madras HC9 Feb 2021CRL OP/2261/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the criminal original petition seeking direction for FIR registration under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Citing Supreme Court precedents, it ruled that the High Court cannot issue such directions; the petitioner must utilize remedies under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as not maintainable; liberty granted to workload the alternative remedy under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Pavunkumar Vs State Represented by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 09.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.2261 of 2021

¶6

Pavunkumar .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State Represented by

¶9

The District Superintendent of Police, District Superintendent of Police Office, Villupuram District.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Avalurpet Police Station, Avalurpet, Villupuram District. .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the 2^nd respondent to register the case, investigate the matter pertaining to the complaint of the petitioner dated 30.10.2020 given to the respondent police and to deal the said persons in according to law.

¶12

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Suseela Devi For Respondents: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶13

This petition has been filed to direct the 2^nd respondent to register the case, investigate the matter pertaining to the complaint of the petitioner dated 30.10.2020 given to the respondent police and to deal the said persons in according to law.

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police.

¶15

3.This petition is not maintainable, in view of the Order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in G.Prabhakaran v. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl 489. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment rendered by a three Judge Bench in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki

¶16

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

¶17

reported in (2020) 5 CTC 464, after relying upon Sakiri Vasu Case, has categorically held that the High Court cannot issue any direction for registration of FIR in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the informant has to necessarily avail of the alternative remedy provided under Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C., and Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Liberty is given to the petitioner to workout his remedy as per the directions issued by the Division Bench in the order referred supra.

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶19

s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
ssr
To
1. The District Superintendent of Police,
District Superintendent of Police Office,
Villupuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Avalurpet Police Station,
Avalurpet,
Villupuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 CC to Ms.S.Suseela Devi, Advocate sr 7251.
Crl.O.P.No.2261 of 2021
GMI(CO)
SP(01/03/2021)

¶20

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

Pavunkumar v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavunkumar v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Aysha Parveen Vs The Home Secretary

Rani Vs State by Its

Alaka Mishra Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

A.Senthilkumar, M/A-36 Vs State Rep. by

Indira Priyatharshini @ Vs State through

K.Shanmugam Vs the State Rep by