Dismissed

R.Kavitha v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC5 Nov 2014CRL OP/14087/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking transfer of investigation rights from local police to the CBCID, holding that since the investigation was nearly complete pending only revenue sanction, the question of transfer did not arise.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition for transfer of investigation was dismissed; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

R.Kavitha Vs the Commissioner of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 05.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

Crl.OP No.14087 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

R.Kavitha .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶7

2.The Inspector of Police, T-1 Ambattur Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to transfer the investigation in Crime No.394/2014 for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) I.P.C., read with Section 25(i)(b) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Crime NO.396/2014 for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397,506(ii) IPC read with 25(i)(b) of Indian Arms act, 1959. from the file of the second respondent police to the file of the CBCID, Chennai.

¶9

For Petitioner :Mr.B.Nambiselvan For Respondents :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Seeking to transfer the investigation in Crime No.394/2014 for the offence under Section for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506 (ii) I.P.C., read with Section 25(i) (b) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Crime NO.396/2014 for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397,506(ii) IPC read with 25(i)(b) of Indian Arms act, 1959. from the file of the second respondent police to the file of the CBCID, Chennai, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶12

2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and I have also perused the records carefully.

¶13

3.It is submitted by the learned Additional Public https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prosecutor that the investigation has almost been completed and

¶14

what remains to be done is getting sanction from the Revenue Department.

¶15

4.In view of the same, at this stage, question of transferring the case does not arise. Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar

¶18

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jbm To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. 2.The Inspector of Police, T-1 Ambattur Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 2 cc to Mr..B.Nambiselvan ,Advocate, SR.No.52668, 52408 Crl.OP No.14087 of 2014 mg(co) pmk.11.11.2014

¶19

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

R.Kavitha v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kavitha v. the Commissioner 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

S.Geetha Nayaki Vs the Commissioner of Police

N.Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Kuppammal Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Devendran Vs the State of Tamilnadu

C.Kuppusamy Vs the Inspector of Police