Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M. Munusamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 March, 2019
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.507 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10114 of 2018)
M. MUNUSAMY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The High Court of Madras had passed directions in Criminal O.P. No.29101 of 2017 initiated by the appellant and had directed the police to consider the matter in the light of the decision of this Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2013) 6 CTC 353 and register the complaint, if cognizable offence was made out.
According to the appellant, after he reached the police station to register the complaint, the matter was settled in the police station.
The appellant thereafter approached the High Court once again by filing Criminal O.P. No.14654 of 2018 seeking appropriate directions to the police to register a case. That petition came to be rejected by the High Court on the ground that since the matter Signature Not Verified was Digitally signed by settled and the issue raised by the appellant that the MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.03.27 17:40:42 IST settlement was forced upon him were all questions of fact, the same Reason:
could not be gone into in said petition. 2 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
It is beyond doubt that on the earlier occasion, the direction was passed by the High Court to register a complaint in case cognizable offence was made out. The matter ought to have been considered in that perspective without being influenced by the fact that a settlement was arrived at between the parties in the police station, particularly when the settlement as alleged was seriously disputed.
We, therefore, direct the concerned police station to consider the matter purely in terms of the earlier direction passed by the High Court without being influenced by any of the subsequent events including the fact that a settlement was allegedly arrived at.
We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal in the aforesaid terms.
.................................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] .................................J. [INDU MALHOTRA] NEW DELHI;
MARCH 15, 2019
3
ITEM NO.62 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10114/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-05-2018 in CRLOP No.14654/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras) M. MUNUSAMY Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 15-03-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Karuppaiah, Adv.
Ms. Vandana, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Bharathi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. S. Parthasarathi, Adv. Mr. S. Raja Rajeshwaran, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The criminal appeal stands allowed, in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)