Disposed

B.Pakkiyalakshmi, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC7 Feb 2013CRL OP(MD)/1021/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Madras High Court declined to order the transfer of an investigation. Instead, it directed the investigating officer to make further progress after receiving the postmortem report and directed the supervising officer to monitor the process.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; Directions given to investigate further and supervise the investigation process.

B.Pakkiyalakshmi, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.02.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1021 of 2013

¶7

B.Pakkiyalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

State rep. by the

¶9

1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Thevaram Police Station, Thevaram, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 1st respondent to transfer the investigation in Crime No.141 of 2012, dated 30.07.2012, pending on the file of the 2nd respondent to any other competent officer.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vanchinathan

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Balasubramaniam Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶16

2.The petitioner approached this Court for the relief as sought for in this petition on the ground that the investigation is not held properly and effectively, whereas the particulars furnished herein would reveal that the second respondent has, on receipt of the postmortem report, altered the case from one under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to one under Section 302 IPC and arrested two accused and has been proceeding with the investigation. As such, this Court is of the view that no further order is necessary in this application, except to direct the second respondent to make further progress, and to direct the first respondent to supervise the investigation process and to give suitable instructions to the second respondent.

¶17

With the above directions, this petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶20

/True Copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.

¶24

2.The Inspector of Police, Thevaram Police Station, Thevaram, Theni District.

¶25

+1C.C. to M/s.S.Vanchinathan, Advocate in Sr.No.5704

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gcg

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1021 of 2013 07.02.2013

¶28

PBK 27/02/2013 ::1P-4C::

B.Pakkiyalakshmi, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Pakkiyalakshmi, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Vs the Inspector of Police

Nagulakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Selvakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

C. Manikumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Indrani, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Pandiammal Vs the Inspector of Police