Dismissed

Venda v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC16 Dec 2015CRL OP/5252/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought investigation transfer to CBCID under Section 482 Cr.P.C regarding her son’s death. Court held local transfer unnecessary but directed police to expedite investigation and designated a senior officer to monitor progress.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to expedite investigation; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gudiyatham, directed to monitor and complete investigation as early as possible.

Venda Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.12.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.5252 of 2015

¶6

Tmt.Venda ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Sathuvachari, Vellore. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Sathuvachari, Vellore. 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, K.V.Kuppam Police Station, K.V.Kuppam, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. ... Respondents

¶7

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondents herein to transfer the investigation to CBCID or any other investigating agencies to investigate the case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 18.06.2014 given to the respondents.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sampath For respondents: Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This petition has been filed to direct the respondents herein to transfer the investigation to CBCID or any other investigating agencies to investigate the case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 18.06.2014 given to the respondents.

¶11

In the petition it is stated that on 8.6.2014, one Suresh took the petitioner's younger son Vignesh to do the agricultural work in his land. Thereafter, Vignesh did not

¶12

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

¶13

return home. When the petitioner was searching for her son, she received a message from the 3^rd respondent that her son was found died and his body was lying in the nearby land covered by coconut leaves . The petitioner had a suspicion that her son was murdered by (1) Karunanidhi, Son of Adimoolam, (2) Paranthaman, son of Manickam, (3) Suresh, son of Paranthaman (4) Babu son of Selvaraj and (5) Rajkamal, son of Munusamy. Hence, she lodged a complaint with the respondent police on 18.06.2014. Since no action was taken, the petitioner made a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore, on 1.7.2014. Even thereafter, no action was taken. Hence, on 8.7.2014 a complaint was given to the Director General of Police, Chennai. Even than the complaint was also not acted upon. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶14

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

¶15

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the case was registered in Cr.No.127 of 2014 on the complaint of one Sankar, who is the father of the deceased for the alleged offence under section 174 Cr.P.C. Now, the enquiry is pending with the R.D.O. As soon as they receive the report from the R.D.O., they would proceed further with the case.

¶16

In view of the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need to transfer the investigation from the file of the respondent police. However, the respondent police is directed to expedite the investigation and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gudiyatham, is directed to monitor the investigation and to complete the same as early as possible.

¶17

The criminal original petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

vsi

¶22

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

¶23

To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Vellore District, Sathuvachari,
Vellore.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vellore District,Sathuvachari,
Vellore.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
K.V.Kuppam Police Station,
K.V.Kuppam,Katpadi Taluk,
Vellore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gudiyatham.
+ 1 cc to M/s. N. Sampath, Advocate Sr.68059
Crl.O.P.No.5252 of 2015
VD(CO)
Eu 11.1.16

¶24

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

Venda v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venda 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

Gayathri Karthik Vs Jyotsan Sivakumar

Hakkim @ Poonai Hakkim Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Paranthaman Vs the Inspector of Police

L.Raja, Vs The Secretary to Government

Mrs.Pushpam Subbiah Vs The Sub-Inspector of Police

Ayyappan, Vs State Rep. by