REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

K.R. RAMKUMAR Appellant

V/S

STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBAKONAM WEST POLICE STATION, KUMBAKONAM Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

S. SHREENIVASA RAO V. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH,EGMORE,CHENNAI 8 [REFERRED TO]
CHELPARK COMPANY LTD.,V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MANU BAI V. SHUKHDEO [REFERRED TO]
RAJKAPOOR V. STATE OF DELHI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
CHELPARK CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI V. RAM KISHAN ROHTAGI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
HABIBUL KAREEM V. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE,CHENNAI [REFERRED TO]
DHANDAPANI V. STATE,BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VALPARAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR V. SRI RAJENDRA AGARWALLA [REFERRED TO]
A. SUNDARAM V. THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, GREENWAYS ROAD,MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
P.A. SALEEM AND OTHERS V. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,T.NAGAR,MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MARY ANGEL AND OTHERS V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
JANATA DAL V. H.S. CHOWDHARY [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDRO V. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHI RAM VS. HASHIM [REFERRED TO]
R P KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
PALANIAPPA GOUNDER VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
L V JADHAV VS. SHANKARRAO ABASAHEB PAWAR [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMPAL VS. RAMSHRI [REFERRED TO]
ARUN SHANKAR SHUKLA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH MANN VS. HARBHAJAN SINGH BAJWA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. M DEVENDRAPPA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above Criminal Original Petitions are filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioners therein.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners place reliance on the Judgment in Chelpark Co. v. Commissioner of Police, Madras, 1969 Crl.L.J. 206, wherein this Court has held that when a Magistrate can order investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. it cannot be said that High Court has no power to order investigation and direct the police to do its duty. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohindro v. State of Punjab & others, 2001 (2) Supreme (Cr.) 141, that: "Police cannot refuse to register a case on report of cognizable offence on basis of any alleged enquiry". THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the above decisions, these petitions are to be allowed as prayed for.

(3.) THE Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code. In Kushi Ram v. Hashim, AIR 1959 SC 542, a three judges Bench of the Supreme Court has held that: "It is unnecessary to emphasis that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 561(A) cannot be invoked in regard to matters which are directly covered by the specific provisions of the Code; ." This was reiterated again in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, while interpreting the Section 561(A) under the 1898 Code (which was identical with Section 482, Cr.P.C. of the 1973 Code) as follows:

Click here to view full judgment.

K R RAMKUMAR Vs. STATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address