R.Valli v. State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.04.2016 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.No.8274 of 2016 R.Valli ... Petitioner Vs.

State by

1. The Superintendent of Police.

Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurantakam Sub-Division, Madurantakam - 603 306, Kancheepuram District.

3. The Inspector of Police (Circle) Melmaruvathur Police Stationm GST Road, Melmaruvathur, Kancheepuram District.

4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittamur Police Station, Madurantakam Via and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

... Respondents Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the concerned respondent to register the complaint dated 06.03.2016 against Mrs.Meenakshi @ Muniammal and two others unknown.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Pachiyappan For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the respondent police to register a case pertaining to the petitioner's complaint dated 06.03.2016. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondents on 06.03.2016. But the respondents have not shown any interest to enquire the matter and register the case. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief. 3.At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, petition enquiry has been conducted and closed. But, he has fairly conceded that the statement of the petitioner does not find place in the file. 4.Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the typed set of papers.

5.The petitioner has given a complaint before the respondents on 06.03.2016. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, enquiry has been conducted and closed and he has fairly conceded that the statement of the petitioner does not find place in the file. Hence, I am of the view that it is a fit case to re-open the closure report and enquire the matter afresh. Therefore, the third respondent is directed to re-open the case and expedite the enquiry and follow the dictum laid down in Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P & others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC) and register a case, if any cognizable offence is made out. The petitioner is also directed to appear before the respondent police on 05.05.2016 with all the relevant documents.

6. The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cse

To

1. The Superintendent of Police.

Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurantakam Sub-Division, Madurantakam - 603 306, Kancheepuram District.

3. The Inspector of Police (Circle) Melmaruvathur Police Stationm GST Road, Melmaruvathur, Kancheepuram District.

4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittamur Police Station, Madurantakam Via and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.J.Pachiyappan, Advocate, S.R.No.26218 Crl.O.P.No.8274 of 2016 PPA(CO) CA(03/05/2016)