Dismissed

Chinnammal v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC21 Jul 2015CRL OP(MD)/11661/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Original Petition seeking transfer of police investigation from an Inspector to a Deputy Superintendent of Police was dismissed as the petitioner's prayer was rejected and the petitioner was directed to monitor the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to transfer investigation was rejected; the Superintendent of Police was directed to monitor the investigation.

Chinnammal Vs the Superintendent of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

Chinnammal

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.07.2015 CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11661 of 2015

¶6

.. Petitioner/Defacto complainant Vs.

¶7

1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni.

¶8

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyakulam Sub-Division, Theni District.

¶9

3.The Inspector of Police, Jeyamangalam Police Station, Theni District.

¶10

(Crime no.184 of 2015).

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct the first respondent herein to transfer the investigation in Crime No.184 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Jeyamangalam Police Station, Theni District to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyakulam Sub Division/2^nd respondent herein, pursuant to the representation dated 09.06.2015.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (crl. side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Criminal Original Petition is filed for a direction to direct the first respondent herein to transfer the investigation in Crime No.184 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Jeyamangalam Police Station, Theni District to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyakulam Sub Division/2^nd respondent herein, pursuant to the representation dated 09.06.2015.

¶16

2.A perusal of the status report would go to show that the respondent No.3 is proceeding the investigation in the right manner. Hence, the prayer sought for is rejected. However, a direction is issued to the first respondent to monitor the investigation.

¶17

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶19

/True copy/

¶20

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

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

rj2

¶23

¶24

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyakulam Sub-Division, Theni District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Jeyamangalam Police Station, Theni District. 4.The Additional Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +one cc to Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.40220 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11661 of 2015 21.07.2015

¶25

CSL/06/08/2015 2P/6C

¶26

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

Chinnammal v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnammal 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

Saraswathi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

S. Krishnakumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Anil Alias Beer Mohaideen Vs the Inspector of Police

Satham Hussain Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

K.Mathanraj Vs the Commissioner of Police

Periyalwar Vs the Superintendent of Police