C. PARTHASARATHY Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he had preferred a Complaint with the 2nd Respondent. Since the 2nd Respondent had not taken any action against the Respondents 3 and 4, he was forced to file this Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per the reported Ruling of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CDJ-2018-MHC-5100 in the case of G.Prabakaran vs The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District and another, the Registry was directed not to number the Writ Petition mechanically.

(3.) In the Ruling of Division Bench of this Court in a batch of Criminal Original Petitions reported in CDJ 2018 MHC 5100 in the case of G.Prabakaran vs The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District and another, it was stated that the Writ Petition seeking direction to register the case cannot be ordered. As per the reported decision, instead of filing Criminal Original Petition for direction, the aggrieved party shall approach the Judicial Magistrate under Sec. 156 Cr.P.C. Only after direction is issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate / Metropolitan Magistrate, after reasonable time, ie. one or two months and after such direction by the Magistrate, they shall file Criminal Original Petition under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. and not the Writ Petition, under Sec. 226 of the Constitution of India. In spite of the same, the Petitioner had come forward with the Writ Petition and as per the reported Judgment, the concerned Sec. is mechanically numbering the Writ Petition.