1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15564 of 2011 A.Kumar ...Petitioner -Vs- 1.State rep. by The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sivanthipatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 2nd respondent to record the statement of the petitioner/defacto complainant in connection with the case in Cr.No.85 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.D.Anbarasu For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to record the statement of the petitioner/defacto complainant in connection with the case in Cr.No.85 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. 2. Heard Mr.D.Anbarasu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3.The police has registered a complaint in crime No.85 of 2011 dated 20.06.2011 as if the petitioner has given a complaint before the respondent police. He would also submit that the petitioner was not admitted in any hospital, but the contents of the F.I.R. would go to show that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital and was taking treatment and a case has been registered, on that basis. But, so far, the petitioner was also not examined and the statement of the petitioner was also not recorded. But, it has been seen that the petitioner's statement was stated to have been recorded and was tagged with the case diary. He would therefore request the Court to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent police to record his actual statement and to proceed in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the petitioner's complaint was registered and the petitioner was examined and his statement was also recorded and the complaint given by the petitioner is being investigated. He would further submit that there is no truth in the submission of the petitioner and however, the 2nd respondent is willing to abide by the direction of this Court. 5.Considering the submissions made on either side, I could see that the petitioner has come forward with the petition seeking to examine himself by the 2nd respondent police and to record a statement. It has also been put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no complaint was given by the petitioner, but, a case has been registered in crime No.85 of 2011, as if the petitioner has given a complaint before the 2nd respondent police. However, I could understand from the argument of the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) that the investigation has been almost completed. Since the petitioner, who is the defacto complainant is willing to give a statement regarding the case, I am inclined to direct the 2nd respondent police to record the statement of the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order either it is for the 1st time or it is a further statement of the petitioner and to complete the investigation on the basis of the said statement to be given by the petitioner. 6.With the aforesaid direction, this criminal original petition is ordered. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sivanthipatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai arul rl/4 c- 28.12.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15564 of 2011 13.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/