SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8975

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. Babu, J
REMI POULOSE K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
SUSANTH SHAJI, ALBIN A. JOSEPH, TINCY MARIA SCARIA, KURUVILLA MATHEW

J U D G M E N T

In all these Original Petitions the common petitioner seeks directions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam to order investigation into the allegations levelled against the party respondent.

2. The petitioner lodged complaints against the party respondents in all these cases before the SHO concerned, and thereafter filed complaints under Section 190 r/w Section 200 Cr.P.C.

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though there were specific allegations of the commission of cognizable offences, no action was taken by the police .

4. When information with regard to the commission of any cognizable offence is laid with the police, but no action on that behalf is taken, the complainant/aggrieved person has right under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Instead of adopting or availing that procedure, he is not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition and seek a direction to conduct an investigation into the complaint filed by him before the police [SeeAll India Institute of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top