Alfred Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police station Thoothukudi District and Another

Alfred vs State represented by the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police station Thoothukudi District and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Jun 21, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1190347

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1190347
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: The Honourable Dr.(Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala
Decided On: Jun 21, 2016
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 8744 of 2016
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Alfred

Respondent

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police station Thoothukudi District and Another

Excerpt

.....district, by which the complaint of arulmathi yesuvadial / 2nd respondent herein was ordered to be forwarded to the station house officer concerned (under section 156(3) cr.p.c.) to register a case, investigate the same and a report to be filed on or before 08.06.2016. 2. based on the orders, a case was registered in crime no.123 of 2016 under sections 147, 294(b), 465, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) ipc. 3. challenging the order passed by the learned magistrate, directing the police to register a case, the present petition in crl.o.p.(md) no.8744 of 2016 has been filed. 4. it is seen that based upon the complaint dated 23.04.2016, preferred by the de-facto complainant in crl.o.p.(md) no.7657 of 2016 (arulmathi yesuvadial), direction was sought for to register a case. pointing out that already a case has been registered in crime no.123 of 2016, the criminal original petition was closed. 5. the grievance was expressed by the learned counsel for the intervenor in crl.o.p.(md) no.7657 of 2016 that when crl.o.p.8744 of 2016 was pending, challenging the order of the learned magistrate, the case ought not to have been registered, but has been registered. 6. as the case has already been registered, the challenge made to the order of the magistrate has become infructuous. 7. under such circumstances, this petition is closed, while recording the conduct of the defacto complainant in moving crl.o.p.(md) no.7657 of 2016 without disclosing the proceedings before the judicial magistrate, srivaigundam, thoothukudi district. consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.4598 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaigundam, Thoothukudi District and set aside the order dated 06.05.2016.)

1. This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 06.05.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.4598 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaigundam, Thoothukudi District, by which the complaint of Arulmathi Yesuvadial / 2^nd respondent herein was ordered to be forwarded to the Station House Officer concerned (under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) to register a case, investigate the same and a report to be filed on or before 08.06.2016.

2. Based on the orders, a case was registered in Crime No.123 of 2016 under Sections 147, 294(b), 465, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) IPC.

3. Challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate, directing the Police to register a case, the present petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8744 of 2016 has been filed.

4. It is seen that based upon the complaint dated 23.04.2016, preferred by the de-facto complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7657 of 2016 (Arulmathi Yesuvadial), direction was sought for to register a case. Pointing out that already a case has been registered in Crime No.123 of 2016, the Criminal Original petition was closed.

5. The grievance was expressed by the learned counsel for the Intervenor in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7657 of 2016 that when Crl.O.P.8744 of 2016 was pending, challenging the order of the learned Magistrate, the case ought not to have been registered, but has been registered.

6. As the case has already been registered, the challenge made to the order of the Magistrate has become infructuous.

7. Under such circumstances, this petition is closed, while recording the conduct of the defacto complainant in moving Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7657 of 2016 without disclosing the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaigundam, Thoothukudi District. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Alfred vs State represented by the Inspector of Police, Murap... Same Subject Criminal Same Judge The Honourable Dr.(Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala