Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/18968/2015disposed of

A.M. Rajeswari v. The Superilntendent Of Police

2015-10-01Honourable Dr. Justice S. Vimala2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.10.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18968 of 2015 A.M. RAJESWARI .. Petitioner Vs.

1. THE SUPERILNTENDENT OF POLICE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, DINDIGUL.

2. THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, DINDIGUL.

.. Respondents Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondents to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 20.07.2015 and further direct them to investigate the case in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnasamy For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 20.07.2015 and further direct them to investigate the case in accordance with law. 2.The sum and substance of the case is that a house property in Survey No.122/1 bearing Door No.3-6-15 and 3.12.14 situate at Kamakshi Amman Kovil Street, Ward No.3, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District, is the self acquired property of the petitioner; the accused K.N.Ravindran induced the petitioner to sell the property to him by making a false promise that he would purchase the above said house for Rs.25,00,000/-; thereafter, he paid only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, promising to pay the remaining amount within fifteen days; thereafter, with the bonafide faith on the accused, the petitioner executed a sale deed, dated 27.02.

2013 in favour of the accused in respect of the above said house property; thereafter, when the petitioner asked for the remaining amount, the accused replied negatively and abused the petitioner in foul language and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the petitioner has given the complaint.

3.According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), petition enquiry is pending.

4.As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC)], the respondent concerned may conduct a preliminary enquiry which shall not extend beyond https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In conducting the preliminary enquiry, they shall put the concerned parties upon notice and follow the dictum laid down in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610. At the end of the enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the concerned respondent shall register a case. In the event of effecting closure of the case upon conducting a petition enquiry, intimation regarding closure shall be sent to the complainant. It is left open to the petitioner to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate in accordance with law, if he is aggrieved.

5. The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar rj2 To

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, DINDIGUL.

2. THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, DINDIGUL. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+one cc to Mr.P.Krishnasamy, Advocate in SR.No.58036 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18968 of 2015 01.10.2015 CSL/MP/15.10.2015 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/