Neethipathi Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Aravayal Police Station and Another

Neethipathi vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Aravayal Police Station and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Jun 09, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1190645

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/1190645
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: The Honourable Dr. (Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala
Decided On: Jun 09, 2016
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 7068 of 2016
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Neethipathi

Respondent

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Aravayal Police Station and Another

Excerpt

.....petitioner's father, created forged documents and obtained loan from canara bank for a sum of rs.4,50,000/-by impersonating the petitioner. when the bank officials visited the house of the petitioner requesting to repay the loan, which was fraudulently obtained by ravichandran in the name of the petitioner, the whole episode played by ravichandran came to light. in this regard, a complaint was lodged before the respondent police and since no positive action was taken on the complaint preferred by the petitioner, he is before this court seeking the above relief. 4. in view of the submission made by the learned government advocate (crl.side) that petition enquiry is pending in this case, the 2nd 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. 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.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 14.3.2016 and initiate appropriate action in accordance with law and register a case and investigate the same.)

1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents herein to register an FIR based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 14.03.2016 in accordance with law.

2. Heard the learned counsel for 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.3. The sum and substance of the complaint is that one Ravichandran, using the innocence of the petitioner's father, created forged documents and obtained loan from Canara Bank for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-by impersonating the petitioner. When the Bank officials visited the house of the petitioner requesting to repay the loan, which was fraudulently obtained by Ravichandran in the name of the petitioner, the whole episode played by Ravichandran came to light. In this regard, a complaint was lodged before the respondent police and since no positive action was taken on the complaint preferred by the petitioner, he is before this Court seeking the above relief.

4. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that petition enquiry is pending in this case, the 2nd 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. 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.

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