Madras High CourtCRL RC/1484/2022disposed of

T.Dhanasekaran v. State Rep By

2022-11-08Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Criminal Revision Case No.1484 of 2022 D.Dhanasekaran ... Petitioner

Versus

1.State represented by The Superintendent of Police, No.42, Bharathi Nagar, Medavakkam Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

2.The Inspector of Police, T-13, Kundrathur Police Station, Kundrathur, Chennai - 600 069.

3.Amsavalli @ Anusha ... Respondents Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2390 of 2022 dated 08.09.2022 by the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur and consequently direct the respondent police to register a case based upon the complaints dated 03.04.2022 and 05.04.2022.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Ayyamperumal For Respondents :

Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor R1 and R2

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 08.09.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2390 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur and to direct the respondent/Police to register the case based upon the complaints dated 03.04.2022 and 05.04.2022.

2. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that since he has given complaints to the second respondent/Police on 03.04.2022 and 05.04.2022, they have not taken any action. Hence, he preferred a complaint before the first respondent on 11.04.2022, but the same has been kept in abeyance without any further action. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur to direct the respondent/Police to register the complaint in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate without considering the nature of allegation simply dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the respondent/police received the complaints filed by the petitioner and they have also conducted an enquiry. He further submitted that since it is a matrimonial dispute and there was no specific allegations in the complaint, the respondent/Police closed the complaint.

4.Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that so far no report has been received by the petitioner, the respondent/police is directed to serve a copy of the closure report to the petitioner. On receipt of the report, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

5. With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. 09.11.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order ms

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

ms To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3.The Superintendent of Police, No.42, Bharathi Nagar, Medavakkam Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

4.The Inspector of Police, T-13, Kundrathur Police Station, Kundrathur, Chennai - 600 069.

09.11.2022