SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

[5/31, 12:04] Sekarreporter1: Send one video interview regarding the order for my youtube channal [5/31, 12:08] Sekarreporter1: [5/31, 12:06] Sekarreporter1: Crl.R.C.No.234 of 2021 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram Senior Counsel

by ·

[5/31, 12:04] Sekarreporter1: Send one video interview regarding the order for my youtube channal
[5/31, 12:08] Sekarreporter1: [5/31, 12:06] Sekarreporter1: Crl.R.C.No.234 of 2021
156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram
Senior Counsel
For Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Mathan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R-1
O R D E R
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent-Police and
perused the materials placed on record.
2. This Revision has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned
II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dated 16.02.2021, dismissing the
petitioner’s application in Crl.M.P.No.3408 of 2021, filed under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C, and for a direction to the first respondent to investigate the complaint
filed by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner / defacto complainant has filed a complaint dated
08.12.2020 against the second respondent, before the first respondent-Police.
Since the first respondent-Police has not registered the case and investigated
2/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
[5/31, 12:06] Sekarreporter1: Send one video interview regarding the order for my youtube channal
[5/31, 12:10] Sekarreporter1: Crl.R.C.No.234 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2021
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.234 of 2021
S.Gopi Krishna … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
G-3, Kilpauk Police Station,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 010.
2.Mr.Saravanan @ Shrawanth,
Proprietor,
M/s.Simha Associates
and M/s.V.Constructions,
having Office at No.46-A,
1st Floor, Halls Road,
Chennai – 600 010. … Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside
the order dated 16.02.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.3408 of 2021 passed by the learned
II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and consequently direct the first
respondent to investigate the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
[5/31, 12:10] Sekarreporter1: Crl.R.C.No.234 of 2021
proceed further in accordance with law, whereas, in this case, the respondent-
Police has not given any response to the complaint filed by the defacto
complainant and when he approached before the learned Magistrate, the
learned Magistrate also has not appreciated the fact, and however, dismissed
the complaint filed by the petitioner.
6. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court if any case cognizable
offence is made out, it is the duty of the Court to register the case and
investigate the matter and file a charge sheet. The citations referred by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are squarely applicable to the present
case on hand. In this case, both the respondent-Police as well as the learned
Magistrate failed to consider the same.
7. In view of the above, this Court finds that there is a perversity in the
order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the
order passed by the learned learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai
is set aside and the first respondent-Police is directed to take the complaint
filed by the petitioner, dated 08.12.2020, on file and investigate the matter and
file a charge sheet in accordance with law, within a period of three months from
5/7
http://www.judis.nic.in

You may also like...