Disposed

Chockalingam v. the State Rep by

Madras HC8 Jul 2021CRL OP/22960/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Crl.O.P. under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought an inquiry into the irregular closure of an Accused Offender Report (CSR) and action against colluding officials. The Court, accepting the limited relief sought, directed the petitioner to forward a representation to the Commissioner of Police, who must dispose of it within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to send a copy of the representation dated 19.08.2019 to the Commissioner of Police with a copy of this order.

Chockalingam Vs the State Rep by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.22960 of 2019

Chockalingam

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State: Represented by Commissioner of Police, Chennai City,

¶10

Veppery,Chennai.

¶11

The State: Represented by The Inspector of Police R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station, Chennai 600 083.

¶12

R.Akilan ...Respondents

¶13

Prayer:

¶14

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to direct the first respondent to conduct detailed enquiry into to irregular closure of CSR No.444 of 2019 dated 04.07.2019 closed on 06.08.2019 and to take appropriate action against the officials who had colluded with the third respondent/ accused.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Muthukrishnan

¶16

For Respondents: Mr.C.E.Pratap for R1 and R2 Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) Mr.G.Murugendran for R3

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition has been filed seeking to direct the first respondent to conduct detailed enquiry into irregular closure of CSR No.444 of 2019 dated 04.07.2019 closed on 06.08.2019 and to take appropriate action against the officials who had colluded with the third respondent/ accused.

¶19

2.The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement made by the third respondent, to sell residential plots through EMI Scheme, the petitioner had booked one plot for monthly payment of Rs.3000/- and the petitioner had paid a total sum of Rs.2,20,000/- to the third respondent. As per the third

¶20

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

¶21

respondent's promise, he had to register the property in the name of the petitioner after receiving a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-, however, he did not register the property.

¶22

3.It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter, the petitioner requested the third respondent to return the amount paid by him, however, the third petitioner threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the second respondent as against the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the second respondent had acted in a very negligent manner without following proper procedure. Hence, this petition.

¶23

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made representation to the Commissioner of Police dated 19.08.2019 through counsel, seeking to take action against the third respondent and to provide sanction to take action against the second respondent, hence, this Court may issue direction to the Commissioner of Police to consider the said representation and to dispose of the same within a reasonable time frame.

¶24

5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 raise no serious objection for the limited relief sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶25

6.In view of the limited relief sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court directs the petitioner to send a copy of the representation dated 19.08.2019 to the Commissioner of Police along with a copy of this order, so as to enable the Commissioner of Police to pass appropriate orders. On receipt of such representation, the Commissioner of Police, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation.

¶26

7.This criminal original petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

pri

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Veppery,Chennai. 2. The Inspector of Police R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station, Chennai 600 083. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.N.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.43798 (02/09/2021) Crl.O.P.No.22960 of 2019

¶35

SKY(CO) RGA(25/08/2021)

¶36

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

Chockalingam v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chockalingam v. the 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

G.Ravanan Vs State Rep by

G.Bala M/46 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

Pushpha Rani, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Sundaresan Vs the State Rep by

Chandran Mylapore Eswaran Vs the State Represented by

P.Sundaresan Vs the State Represented by