Disposed

S.D.Moorthy v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC28 Jul 2021CRL RC/383/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC challenged an order directing a preliminary enquiry under Section 156(3) CrPC. The High Court found no perversity in order, citing a 7-year delay and lack of occurrence date as valid reasons for enquiry, and directed the police to conduct it.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to conduct preliminary enquiry and file a report.

S.D.Moorthy Vs the Commissioner of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.07.2021

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.383 of 2021

¶6

S.D.Moorthy ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The Commissioner of Police, No.132, Commissioner of Building, Vepery, Chennai, Chennai - 600 007.

¶9

2.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, T-4, Maduravoyil Police Station, Maduravoyil,

¶10

Chennai - 600 095. ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2568 of 2021, on 26.03.2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee and direct the respondent to register the FIR complaint dated 16.02.2021.

¶12

This Revision has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, ordering preliminary enquiry in Crl.M.P.No.2568 of 2021, filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, and for a direction to the first respondent to register the complaint dated 16.02.2021.

¶13

The petitioner has approached the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to register a private complaint against the private respondents. The learned Magistrate, after enquiry, found that preliminary enquiry is necessary in this case and hence, ordered for preliminary enquiry. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Revision.

¶14

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

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate ought to have given direction to the Inspector of Police to investigate the matter in toto, and however, only ordered for preliminary enquiry, which warrants interference.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that though there was a delay of 7 years in filing the complaint, and the petitioner has also not mentioned the date of occurrence, the learned Judge ordered for preliminary enquiry and therefore, no interference is required.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

¶18

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate ought to have given direction to the respondent-Police to investigate the matter and however ordered only preliminary enquiry. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), as there was a delay of 7 years in filing the complaint and also the petitioner has not mentioned the date of occurrence and petitioner came to know about the offence only after several years, and therefore, the learned Magistrate thought it fit to order preliminary enquiry.

¶19

In view of the above, this Court finds that there is no perversity or illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. As directed by the learned Magistrate, the respondent-Police is directed to conduct preliminary enquiry and file a report within the stipulated time and based on that, the learned Magistrate is directed to act in accordance with law.

¶20

With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

r n s

¶26

¶27

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamalle.

¶28

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

¶29

2.The Commissioner of Police, No.132, Commissioner of Building, Vepery, Chennai, Chennai - 600 007. 3.The Inspector of Police, T-4, Maduravoyil Police Station, Maduravoyil, Chennai - 600 095. 4.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. 5.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. +1 cc to Mr.L.Infant Dinesh, Advocate Sr.No.36346 Crl.R.C.No.383 of 2021

¶30

JPL(CO) RVM(19/08/2021)

¶31

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

S.D.Moorthy v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.D.Moorthy v. the Commissioner 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

M/S.Jagannath Textile Company Ltd., Vs S.Manoharan

Jeeva Bharathi @ Jeeva Vs State Represented by

S.R.Irene Kumari Vs the State Rep by Its

Elangovan Vs the State Rep. by

Thilakar Vs State Rep by

Venkatesh @ Peeri Venkatesh Vs State Rep.by