Disposed

A.Reshma v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC28 Jun 2016CRL OP/12005/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A police officer investigated a case filed by the petitioner appearing before the court to direct transfer of investigation to another officer. The court directed the All Women Police Station to continue investigation, recorded receipt of victim for medical exam, and ordered filing of final report within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the All Women Police Station to investigate and file a final report within one month; petitioner to cooperate.

A.Reshma Vs the Commissioner of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 28.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl. O.P. No.12005 of 2016

¶6

A.Reshma .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus
1.The Commissioner of Police,
O/o.The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Sembium Range,
No.256-257, Paper Mills Road,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.
3.The Inspector of Police,
K-9, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar Police Station,
No.25/12, Pallavan Salai,
Sathyanarayana Street,
Thiru Vi Ka Nagar,
Chennai – 600 082.
4.The Inspector of Police,
W-17, All Women Police Station,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. .. Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to transfer the investigation of the case in Crime/FIR No.60/2016 dated 30.01.2016 from the file of the third respondent, namely, Inspector of Police, K.9 Thiru Vi Ka Nagar Police Station, Chennai to any other competent Police Officer to conduct a proper investigation in accordance with law.

¶9

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents: Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

Today the matter is specifically posted for orders. When the case was taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner on account of boycott. However, in Harish Uppal [Ex.Capt.]

¶11

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

¶12

vs. Union of India & another reported in [2003] 2 SCC 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that boycott of Courts is illegal and therefore, this Court went through the records, heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and passed the following order.

¶13

On 14.06.2016, this Court has passed the following order:

¶14

“When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that initially, FIR was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, K- 6, Thiru.V.Ka.Nagar Police Station, Chennai and thereafter, the investigation has been transferred to the Sub Inspector of Police, A-17, All Women Police Station, Perambur, Chennai. He further submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the whereabouts of the said accused and that the medical examination of the petitioner is essential.

¶15

2.Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR, the Inspector of Police, W-17, All Woman Police Station, is directed to investigate the case. The petitioner is also directed to appear before the Inspector of Police, W-17, All Women Police Station, Perambur, Chennai, who shall take steps for conducting the medical examination under proper police escort and report to this Court on 28.06.2016.

¶16

Post for orders on 28.06.2016 at 2.15PM.”

¶17

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Ms.S.Suguna, Sub Inspector of Police, W-17, All Women Police Station, Perambur, Chennai, is present and she stated that the petitioner appeared before the Inspector of Police for medical examination and she was also submit that the accused was remanded by the respondent police on 30.01.2016 immediately after the incident and the investigation is almost completed.

¶18

Hence, the petitioner is directed to co-operate with the enquiry and the respondent police is directed to file a Final Report, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner / victim girl should be given sufficient protection against any further aggression by the accused.

¶19

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

¶20

5.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

1.The Commissioner of Police, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sembium Range, No.256-257, Paper Mills Road, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. 3.The Inspector of Police, K-9, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar Police Station, No.25/12, Pallavan Salai, Sathyanarayana Street, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar, Chennai – 600 082. 4.The Inspector of Police, W-17, All Women Police Station, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1 cc to M/s.Udaya & Simhan, Advocate,SR.36559. sv(co) krd 19/4

¶26

Crl. O.P. No.12005 of 2016

¶27

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

A.Reshma v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Reshma v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatesan, Vs State by Sub Inspector of

K.Murugesan Vs State by

S.Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Kalai @ Arasakalai Vs the Inspector of Police

Solomon Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Duraisamy Vs State Rep. by