High CourtsSingle Bench(2008) 12 MAD CK 0273

Naveen Machado vs The Superintendent of Police, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station and The Inspector of Police, Tuticorin South Police Station

Madras High Court · Decided on 16 December 2008

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Rajasuria, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (MD) No. 11538 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 345 words

G. Rajasuria, J.—This writ petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to register the petitioner''s complaint dated 09.09.2008.

2.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and alsoMr. D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.

3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would echo the cri de coeur of the grievance of the petitioner to the effect that despite complaint having been lodged with the third respondent viz., the Inspector of Police, Tuticorin South Police Station, Tuticorin, no action has been taken, the petitioner approached the first respondent viz., the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin u/s 154 Cr.P.C.; thereupon the first respondent by his proceedings dated 09.09.2008 directed the second respondent to consider the same and do the needful and also report the same to him.

4.

According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent after sending such communication, has failed to exercise supervision over the second respondent.

5.

Heard the learned Government Advocate, who would argue that it is a well settled proposition of law that no direction could be given to the police to register a case and it is open for the complainant to approach the learned Magistrate concerned either u/s 200 Cr.P.C. or u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.

6.

I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned Government Advocate. However, in this case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would earnestly make a submission to the effect that the first respondent viz., the Superintendent of Police, who after having chosen to issue such proceedings referred to supra, simply washed his hands and he has not taken any action further.

7.

Hence, in these circumstances, the following direction is issued:

The first respondent viz., the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin shall call for report from the Inspector of Police concerned within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and look into the matter and that too after hearing the petitioner.

8.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.