(prayer: criminal original petition filed under section 482 of cr.p.c., praying to direct the respondents herein to register an fir under the complaint of the petitioner dated 08.03.2016.) 1. this petition has been filed to direct the respondents herein to register an fir under the complaint of the petitioner dated 08.03.2016. 2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for the state, who would submit that on the complaint dated 08.03.2016, given by the petitioner, a petition enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed on 08.03.2016. a copy of the closure report is furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. recording the same, this criminal original petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of 2014 in e.p.mo.209 of 2012 in rcop.no.16 of 2003 on the file of additional rent controller / district munsif, madurai, dated 19.12.2014. 2. the facts of the case:- (i) petition property originally belonged to one pandi naidu. he filed rcop.no.16 of 2003 for eviction of one sarojini ammal, mother of respondent on the ground of wilful default and another rcop.no.15 of 2013 for fixation of fair rent. while rcops were pending, the said pandi naidu died. the petitioners herein were impleaded as petitioners in the said rcops as legal representatives of said pandi naidu. after contest, both rcops were allowed. against the said order allowing the rcop, two rcas were filed in rca.nos.29 and 30 of 2010. both the rcas were dismissed. the petitioners filed e.p.no.209 of 2012 for eviction of said sarojini ammal, as per the order passed in rcop.no.16 of 2013. while said execution petition was pending, sarojini ammal filed two civil revision petitions in crps.742 and 743 of 2013, which were dismissed. (ii) in e.p.no.209 of 2012, delivery was ordered and on the application filed by the petitioners, police protection was also ordered. at that stage, sarojini ammal filed e.a.no.281 of 2014 to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT(prayer: criminal original petition filed under section 482 of cr.p.c., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case against the accused on the complaint dated 06.02.2016.) 1. this petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case against the accused on the complaint dated 06.02.2016. 2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for the state. 3. on reading of the complaint dated 06.02.2016, the dispute essentially appears to be civil in nature in as much as the opposite party had borrowed rs.10 lakhks and executed a mortgage deed, which was registered as doc.no.611 of 2013. now, it is alleged by the petitioner that the mortgage property is ancestral property and there are encumbrances. 4. in a case of this nature, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an fir. hence, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT(prayer: petition filed under section 5 of the limitation act to condone the delay of 275 days in preferring the criminal revision case against the judgment passed by the learned principal sessions judge, salem in crl.a.no.113 of 2009 dated 22.12.2014.) 1. though mr.v.balakrishnan, learned counsel had filed memo of appearance in this matter for the respondents 1 and 2/a1 and a2, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents today. 2. heard mr.v.arul, learned government advocate (crl. side) appearing for the petitioners/complainants. 3. it comes to be known that the petitioners/respondents/complainants have preferred the present m.p.no.1 of 2015 praying for passing of an order by this court to condone the delay of 275 days in preferring the instant criminal revision petition as against the judgment passed by the appellate court in crl.a.113 of 2009 dated 22.12.2014. 4. at this juncture, this court has perused the contents of the affidavit in m.p.no.1 of 2015 in sr.no.55987 of 2015 filed by the inspector of police, civil supplies c.i.d., salem district, wherein at para 3 and 4 it is averred as under: 3. i further submit hence, i made copy application once again on.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT(prayer: criminal original petition filed under section 482 of cr.p.c., praying to direct the respondents to register a case against the accused on the representation dated 15.03.2016.) 1. this petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register a case against the accused on the representation dated 15.03.2016. 2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for the state. 3. on reading of the complaint dated 15.03.2016, the dispute essentially appears to be a property dispute between the petitioner and his relatives. hence, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an fir. 4. accordingly, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the victim and the offender in relation to the offences clubbed with special enactment, like arms act, the prevention of corruption act, tnppdl act, tnpid act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. as held by the apex court, insofar the offences arising out of matrimonial dispute, relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature, are concerned, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, in case the parties resolve their entire disputes amicably among themselves. this court feels that there cannot be any compromise in respect of the heinous and serious offences of mental depravity and in that case, the court should be very slow in accepting the compromise. if the compromise is entertained mechanically by the court, the accused will have the upper hand. the jurisdiction of this court may not be allowed to be exploited by the accused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion. the antecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration before accepting the memo of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....rigorous imprisonment for three months. challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused has come forward with this appeal. 3. the brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are as follows : (a) the deceased-sankar ganesh and the accused-selvam were working in baby fashion company in tiruppur, owned by one murugan, the brother of the accused. on the fateful day, i.e., on 31.01.2011, both the deceased and the accused stayed in the company. during midnight, at about 2 'o' clock, on 31.01/ 01.02.2011, the owner of the company, mr.murugan informed p.w.1, the father of the deceased over phone that the deceased was lying in the factory with bleeding injuries. he further told that the accused, who was also injured had been taken to the hospital. p.w.1 along with his son, p.w.3, went to the scene of crime and saw sankar ganesh dead. he along with p.w.3 went to the police station and lodged complaint, ex.p.1 at 5.30 a.m on 01.02.2011. (b) p.w.18, muthukumar, sub-inspector of police, on receipt of the complaint registered fir. p.w.20, the inspector of police took up the case for investigation, went to the scene of crime, prepared an observation mahazar in the presence of p.w.2.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....lodged by anbu jothika (2nd respondent) in crime no.1 of 2015 on 07.02.2015 for offences under sections 294(b), 498(a), 406 and 506(i) ipc and section 4 of d.p.act against subathra and five others. 3. the crux of the allegation in the fir is that anbu jothika got married to vijayakumar on 19.01.2011 and after marriage, she was subjected to untold cruelty by vijayakumar and his family members. in the fir, anbu jothika has stated that vijayakumar is having illicit intimacy with subathra, who is a colleague of his. the respondent police completed the investigation in crime no.1 of 2015 and filed a final report in c.c.no.364 of 2015 before the learned judicial magistrate, srivaikundam for offences under sections 294(b), 498(a), 406, 494 and 506(ii) ipc and section 4 of d.p.act against vijayakumar, his family members and also against subathra (a7), challenging which, subathra (a7) is before this court. 4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for the state and mr.b.n.raja mohammed, learned counsel for r2. 6. learned counsel appearing for anbu jothika (r2) submitted that there are sufficient allegations in the final.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for the offence under section 392 ipc, challenging which, the third accused is before this court. 2. it is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant, a lorry driver was transporting salt in lorry bearing registration no.ka-21-9973 from tuticorin to kozhikodu in kerala on 27.10.2014. enroute near palani, the defacto complainant/driver of the lorry parked the lorry near a tea shop on the palani-udumalai main road. the cleaner of the lorry went for tea, and the defacto complainant was standing near the lorry, and at that time four persons accosted the driver and at knife point, they relieved the driver of rs.3,000/-. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (a-3) contended that even according to the final report, it was only a-1, who had brandished the knife, and there is no serious overt act against the petitioner/a-3. he has also contended that the petitioner/a-3 was a student studying in balamurugan polytechnic and pursuing deee course, and he has been falsely implicated. 4. this court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions. on a close reading of the fir and the statements recorded by the police it is seen that when the defacto.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the petitioner and the learned government advocate (crl.side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending in csr no.204 of 2015. 3. in view of the above submission, the respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. the petitioner shall co-operate in the enquiry. during the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police shall take action in accordance with the law laid down by the hon'ble apex court in lalitha kumari vs. govt. of u.p and others [2013 (4) crimes 243 (sc).in case of closure of the complaint, a copy of the closure report be furnished to the petitioner within a week of such closure. on receipt of the same, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. with the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT