Disposed

M.Dakshinamoorthy v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC24 Feb 2016CRL OP/10214/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the Criminal Original Petition by directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police to examine the case diary, obtain the wound certificate, and file a report within two months regarding the dispute between the petitioner and villagers.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to obtain the wound certificate, peruse the case diary, examine witnesses, and file a report within two months.

M.Dakshinamoorthy Vs the Superintendent of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.02.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.10214 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

M.Dakshinamoorthy
S/o.Manickam
...Petitioners
-V.-
1.The Superintendent of Police
Thanjavur District
Thanjavur
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Papanasam
Thanjavur District
Thanjavur
3.The Inspector of Police
Valangaiman Police Station
Valangaiman
Tiruvarur
...Respondents
PRAYER:

¶7

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to order change of investigation of the case in Cr.No.208/2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Valangaiman Police Station, Thiruvarur District to some other independent investigation agency viz., C.B.C.I.D to investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Kalyani For Respondents: Mr.C.Emalias, A.P.P., O R D E R

¶9

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

¶10

The petitioner has come up with the present Criminal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Original Petition praying to order change of investigation of

¶11

the case in Crime No.208/2014, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 323 IPC r/w 311 TNPPDL Act, stating that the third respondent is supporting the accused in Crime No.208/2014.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that he along with his son Chinnaraja and brother Arivazhagan were implicated in Crime No.207/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324 and 302 IPC. Consequent upon the incident alleged in Crime No.207/2014, the incidents alleged in Crime No.208/2014 had taken place and on the complaint given by one Manickam, who is none other than the father of the petitioner herein, a case has been registered in Crime No.208/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 323 IPC r/w 311 TNPPDL Act. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent is not investigating the matter in proper direction and he is supporting the accused in Crime No.208/2014. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for ordering change in the investigation.

¶13

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a detailed status report wherein it was stated that already the defacto complainant in Crime No.208/2014 viz., Manickam, his son Kumararaja, daughter-inlaw Tamizhselvi, one Selvi who is the wife of the petitioner and daughter-in-law of the complainant and other persons were examined and the investigation is almost concluded. He would also fairly concede that in the case in Crime No.207/2014, the investigation is over and the chargesheet was levied and taken on file of the Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman as PRC.No.3 of 2015. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that there is no necessity for transferring the investigation. Furthermore, he would submit that the wound certificate is yet to be obtained from the Doctor, since the entire records pertaining to the matter has been seized by the Human Rights Commission, on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for dismissal.

¶14

Considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the typed set of papers.

¶15

The petitioner who has retired from Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has three sons, who are very well educated and two of them are placed in Government jobs. Already the relationship between the petitioner and the villagers was strained and while so, on 11.07.2014 at 6.00 P.M, the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place in which one Ramesh had died and other persons including the complainant in Crime No.207/2014 viz., Ramani sustained grevious injuries. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is one of the accused in Crime No.207/2014 and in the said case, the investigation is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ over and the chargesheet was taken on file of the Judicial

¶16

Magistrate, Valangaiman as PRC.No.3 of 2015. Consequent upon the said incident, the angered villagers entered the house of the petitioner and damaged the articles and injured one Manickam. On the complaint given by the said Manickam, who is the father of the petitioner herein, the case in Crime No.208/2014 was registered under Sections 147, 452, 323 IPC r/w 311 TNPPDL Act.

¶17

Further, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner himself had preferred a complaint before the Human Rights Commission and hence, the documents pertaining to the matter were produced before the Human Rights Commission. So, the Investigating Agency is unable to obtain the wound certificate and file a report. Further, on perusal of the FIR in Crime No.208/2014, it was specifically mentioned as follows:

¶18

“vd; t P l ;ow ;Fs ; mj;Jk P wp EiHe;J vd;id fy;yhYk; fl;ilahYk; jhf;fpajpy; vdf;F jiyapy; ,lJ gf;fk ; fhaKk;. ifapy; ,lJ KH';ifapy; Kwpt[k;. ,lJ bjhilapy; cs; fhaKk; Vw;gl ;lJ/”

¶19

Considering the said aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent viz., The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Papanasam, Thanjavur District is directed to peruse the entire case diary and if necessary, examine the other witnesses and file a detailed report, after obtaining the wound certificate from the Doctor who had given treatment. The said exercise has to be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

pgp

¶26

¶27

1.The Superintendent of Police Thanjavur District

¶28

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

¶29

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Papanasam Thanjavur District Thanjavur

¶30

3.The Inspector of Police Valangaiman Police Station Valangaiman Tiruvarur

¶31

4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
+1 cc to M/s.M.Kalyani, Advocate, sr.11557
Crl.O.P.No.10214 of 2015
sai co
kra 03.03.2016

¶32

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

M.Dakshinamoorthy v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Dakshinamoorthy 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

P.Kalarani, W/O.Palani, Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Balamurugan Vs State Rep. by Its

Vinoth Kumar Vs the Commissioner of Police

Arulprakasam Vs The Superintendent of Police

S.Karpagam Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Ayyappan Vs State Rep. by