The Madras High Court had observed that when there was alternate remedy available to the petitioner then he should first workout on that:
“Liberty is given to the petitioner to workout his remedy as per the directions issued by the Division Bench in the order."
The above observation had made by the Single-judge bench of Madras High Court, comprising of Justice N Anand Venkatesh while dealing with the Criminal Original Petition was filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the 2nd respondent to take action against the accused person viz., M/s A.Chinnasamy Sayammal to conduct enquiry and investigate the same.
Court Judgment
The Court relied on the judgment passed by the three judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M Subramaniam v. S Janaki case after being relied on Sakari Vasu case, that the High Court cannot issue any direction for registration of FIR in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the informant has to necessarily avail of the alternative remedy provided under Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C., and Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Liberty is given to the petitioner to workout his remedy as per the directions issued by the Division Bench in the order.
The Bench dismissed the Criminal Original Petition without any cost.
Case Details
Case: Crl.O.P.No.3801 of 2021
Petitioner: K.Rajan
Respondent: The Superintendent of Police & Ors
Counsel for the Petitioner – Mr.G.Murugan
Counsel for the Respondent - Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Quorum: Justice N Anand Venkatesh
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source : https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*smR6Qt26fhiJQB5LRfkWPw.jpeg
