Madras High Court
G.Vimalatha vs The Commissioner Of Police on 6 June, 2016
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.06.2016 Coram: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.No.9331 of 2016 G.Vimalatha ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepary, Chennai. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Vepary, Chennai 7. 3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Document Forgery Cell-5, Central Crime Branch, Vepary Chennai-7. ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the third respondent police or any other superior officer to register and investigate the complaint dated 25.02.2016. *** For Petitioner : Mr.C.Selvakumar For Respondents : Mr.C. Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER
This petition has been filed to direct the third respondent police or any other superior officer to register and investigate the complaint dated 25.02.2016.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. It is seen that the petitioner has given a house to her uncle viz., Sambath Kumar. Taking advantage of this, the said Sambath Kumar transferred the electricity connection and Metro water tax receipt in his name, coming to know of it, the petitioner approached the department and gave petitions dated 06.04.2015, 16.10.2015 and 19.05.2015, pursuant to which, the department have corrected the records and mutated her name therein. Thereafter, it is alleged in complaint dated 25.02.2016 that Sampathkumar has fabricated the documents and has effected transfer. Earlier, this Court by order dated 27.01.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.1226 of 2016 directed the respondent police to conduct enquiry in accordance with law.
4. It is seen that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Document Forgery Cell-5, Central Crime Branch, Vepary has conducted enquiry and given a closure report dated 05.04.2016, advising the parties to approach the Civil Court, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. This Court carefully perused the complaint dated 25.02.2016 given by the petitioner, in which, the petitioner has not stated as to which document, the said sambathkumar has fabricated. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the closure report given by the 3rd respondent/Inspector of Police. Hence, the criminal Original Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy in the manner known to law.
P.N.PRAKASH, J sms With the above said observation, the criminal original petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy in the manner known to law.
sms 06.06.2016
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Vepary, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Vepary, Chennai 7.
3.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Document Forgery Cell-5,
Central Crime Branch,
Vepary Chennai-7.
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
Crl.O.P.No.9331 of 2016