Dismissed

S.Kayalvizhi v. State Rep by

Madras HC17 Apr 2021CRL OP/7126/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chief Justice held that a petition under Section 482 CrPC to direct the registration of a FIR is not maintainable. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the court directed the petitioner to exhaust alternative remedies under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) of the CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to approach the police or Magistrate under CrPC provisions.

S.Kayalvizhi Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.04.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

Crl.OP.No.7126 of 2021

¶6

S.Kayalvizhi ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Chennai, Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai-9.

¶9

2.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur-602 001. 3.The Inspector of Police, M-4, Police Station, Redhills, Chennai-52. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the third respondent to register the case of the petitioner complaint dated 10.03.2021 against R.K.Venkatachalam, V.Kumar, K.Vijaya Lakshmi, S.Ezhilarasan and E.Sheela and file a FIR.

¶11

For Petitioners: Mr.V.Nandagopalan For Respondents: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This petition has been filed to direct the third respondent to register the case of the petitioner complaint dated 10.03.2021 against R.K.Venkatachalam, V.Kumar, K.Vijaya Lakshmi, S.Ezhilarasan and E.Sheela and file a FIR.

¶14

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

¶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 reported in (2020) 5 CTC 464, after relying upon Sakiri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vasu Case, has categorically held that the High Court cannot

¶16

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.

¶17

4.This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mbi
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Commissioner of Chennai,
Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai-9.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur-602 001.
3.The Inspector of Police,
M-4, Police Station, Redhills,
Chennai-52.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.V.Nandagopalan, Advocate, S.R.No. 23993

¶19

Crl.OP.No.7126 of 2021 RSV(CO) GN(17/06/2021)

¶20

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

S.Kayalvizhi v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kayalvizhi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Vijayalakshmi Vs K.R.v.Ramani

E.Nithya Vs the Commissioner of Police

Abirami Vs State Rep by

P.Asokan Vs State Rep by

B.Gunasekaran Vs The Commissioner of Police

Tmt.K.Kavitha Vs The Director General of Police