Dismissed

John Jeyapikash v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Jul 2024CRL RC(MD)/670/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision challenging a Magistrate's order directing police to register FIR and investigate based on a private complaint. The High Court found no merit in the revision and dismissed it, while directing the police to conduct a preliminary investigation under Section 41(a) Cr.P.C. before deciding on FIR registration. Though the revision was dismissed, the specific direction to investigate cl

What did the court decide?

None granted; revision dismissed.

John Jeyapikash Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.670 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 09.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.670 of 2024

¶7

1.John Jeyapikash

¶8

2.Koyil Backiyaraj

¶9

3.Shantha

¶10

4.Princy Backiyam

¶11

5.Thomas Rajan .. Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Cantonment, Trichy District.

¶14

2.Navomi Daisy Fiyona ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the learned III Additional District Munsif (FAC) Cum Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli in Crl.M.P.No.41016 of 2024 dated 21.05.2024 and set aside the same.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Malaiyendran For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶17

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.670 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the learned III Additional District Munsif (FAC) Cum Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli in Crl.M.P.No.41016 of 2024 dated 21.05.2024 and set aside the same.

¶21

The case petitioners is that by making some allegation, the second respondent lodged a compliant against the petitioners before the concerned jurisdictional Police Station and the same was not considered. Therefore, the second respondent sent a representation to the Commissioner of Police through the registered post on 06.12.2023, even then, no further action was taken. Hence, the second respondent filed a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the same was allowed by passing the impugned order and the relevant paragraph is extracted as follows :

¶22

'' 4. Hence in the interest of justice, it is just and necessary to forward this complaint to SHO, All Women Police Station, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli to conduct preliminary enquiry on the complaint made by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and upon investing, if a cognizable case is made out, then the SHO, All Women Police Station,

¶23

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.670 of 2024

¶25

Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli is directed to file an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C and shall proceed the case in accordance with law. ''

¶26

Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

¶27

Perusal of impugned order shows that the learned trial Judge only directs the first respondent to conduct the investigation by following the proper procedure and if any cognizable is made out to register the case.

¶28

In view of the above, this Court does not find any merits in this case. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with a direction to the first respondent to conduct the investigation by issuing summon under Section 41(a) of Cr.P.C., to the petitioner and conduct enquiry and arrive a decision.

¶29

09.07.2024

¶30

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No tta

¶31

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.670 of 2024

¶33

To,

¶34

The learned III Additional District Munsif (FAC) Cum Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli.

¶35

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Cantonment, Trichy District.

¶36

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶37

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.670 of 2024

¶39

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J

¶40

tta

¶41

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.670 of 2024

¶42

09.07.2024

¶43

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

John Jeyapikash v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Jeyapikash v. The Inspector 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

Mohan Vs the Director

N.Srinivasagan Vs v.Alagarsamy

Anandhi Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

D.Robinson Vs The Inspector of Police

Palaniselvam Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Kaliammal Vs M/s Vinayak Cotton Agencies