Disposed

P.Sounthirarajan v. the Dy Superintendent of

Madras HC22 Jun 2015CRL OP/18499/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Cr.O.P. under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought transfer of a criminal case from local police to CBI and directed investigation. The High Court declined the transfer, noting the police investigation had been closed as a mistake of fact. The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to consider the petitioner's objections to the closure report within six months.

What the court decided

AI extract

P.Sounthirarajan Vs the Dy Superintendent of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :22.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP No.18499 of 2013

¶6

P.Sounthirarajan .. Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The State, Rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police, OCU – Crime Branch CID, O/o Crime Branch CID, Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District.

¶9

2.The Joint Director, CBI – Chennai Zone, III Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai.

¶10

4.Mr.T.Rajarajan The Dy. Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, No.800 Avinashi Road, Near by Police Quarters Compound, Coimbatore.

¶11

(R.4 impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 05.08.2013 in M.P.No.1/13P)

¶12

(Impleaded the 4th Respondent as per order of this Court dated 27.2.2014 in M.P.No.2/13) .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to withdraw the Cr.No.1 of 2012 of OCU, CBCID dated 12.01.2012 on the file of the first respondent and transfer the same to the third respondent and direct the third respondent to investigate the same.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Amardeep For Respondents :Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Seeking to withdraw the case in Crime No.1 of 2012 of OCU, CBCID dated 12.01.2012, on the file of the first respondent and transfer the same to the third respondent and direct the third respondent to investigate the same, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶18

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police.

¶19

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the earlier order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in this case and submitted that the Division Bench has come down heavily upon the local police for the perfunctory nature of investigation. It is seen that when the matter was seized by the Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.67 of 2009, CBCID registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2012 and proceeded with the investigation, based on the assertion of the victim boy that he was abducted by four persons.

¶20

4.The petitioner was not happy with the manner in which the CBCID was proceeding and therefore, a Contempt Petition was filed before a Division Bench of this Court in Contempt Petition No.1426 of 2010. The Division Bench has passed the following order on 25.04.2012:-

¶21

“5.During the course of the hearing of the contempt petition, as directed by us, a case in Crime No.1 of 2012 was registered by the C.B CID against four persons. When the report is submitted, it is for the petitioner to submit their objections, if any, against the report. Since the order passed by this Court in H.C.P.No.67 of 2009 is complied with and accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents, we consider it appropriate to close the contempt petition and the same is accordingly closed.”

¶22

5.From the above directions, it is clear that the Division Bench has not stated that the police should file a charge sheet against anyone and has stated that if a report is filed, then, the petitioner can raise his objections against the said report.

¶23

6.In this petition, the respondent police have filed a status report wherein, it is stated as follows:-

¶24

“Furthermore, on 14.01.2009, the boy was examined by the learned Judicial Magistrate. At that time, the boy stated that

¶25

“N:hpah gpufhc&; TwpaJ. 29/12/2008 v';f mg;gh. mk;kh. khkh ez;gh; t Pl ;oy; xz;og[Jhh; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bfhz;Lngha; tpl;ldh;/ "hapw;Wf;fpHik vd;id

¶26

mk;kh. mg;gh miHj;Jf;bfhz;L jpUg;g{h; myht [j P d ; vd;gth; t Pl ;oy; j';fitj;Jk; myht[j P d ; khkh mtuJ kidtpa[k; vdf;F Jhf;f khj;jpiu bghpah!;gj;jphpapy; gLf;f itj;jdh;/ nghy P! ; !;nlrd; v';nf ,Uf;fpwJ vd nfl;Lf;bfhz;nl ehnd te;Jtpl;nld;/ ehd; vd; bgw;nwhUld; bry;y tpUk;g[fpnwd;

¶27

The investigation further reveals that based on the records of the observation Home, the said Soundarya visited the above said Home on 15.1.2009, 16.1.2009 (twice) 17.1.2009 respectively, but she has not taken any steps to take custody of her son and the same was endorsed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, dated 19.1.2009.

¶28

Hence, on the above grounds, the above said case was referred as “Mistake of Fact” by me on 10.04.2013 in accordance with law. Since the defacto complainant refused to accept the RCS Notice served by us, the same was endorsed by the VAO concerned and submit the same before the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore on 02.07.2013. The next hearing is posted to 12.8.2013 for the appearance of the defacto complainant.”

¶29

7.From the above, it appears that the police have recorded the 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim boy and he himself has not stated anything implicating the police.

¶30

8.Be that as it may, now, a closure report has been filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore on 02.07.2013 and the petitioner has also filed his objections to it.

¶31

9.Under such circumstances, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to consider the objections of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the order has not been already passed.

¶32

10.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

jbm

¶38

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

¶39

To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, OCU – Crime Branch CID, O/o Crime Branch CID, Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District. 2.The Joint Director, CBI – Chennai Zone, III Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai. 4.Mr.T.Rajarajan The Dy. Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, No.800 Avinashi Road, Near by Police Quarters Compound, Coimbatore. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to M/s.Tamizh Law Firm , Advocate Sr.No.30502 Crl.OP No.18499 of 2013 ppa(co) pmk.1.7.2015

¶40

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

P.Sounthirarajan v. the Dy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

P.Sounthirarajan v. the Dy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Rafeeq Vs State Rep. by

Tony @ Dhoni, Aged 32 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Karthik Vs State Rep. by

C.Karunanidhi Vs the State, Represented by

C.H.Yuvakrishna Vs the Asst.Commissioner of

Chellaiah Vs the State through