Dismissed

Leelesh Kumar v. the State

Madras HC11 Aug 2016CRL OP/14644/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge rejected the prayer for transfer of investigation under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Finding the crime nature unfit for transfer and noting investigation completion, the court dismissed the petition but granted liberty to file a protest application before the trial magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petition for transfer of investigation dismissed; liberty granted to file protest application.

Leelesh Kumar Vs the State — Madras HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 11.08.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL.OP.No.14644 of 2016

¶6

Leelesh Kumar ... Petitioner Vs

¶7

State rep.by The Inspector of Police, B-1, North Beach Police Station, Chennai-600 001. ... Respondent

¶8

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to transfer the investigation in FIR No.400 of 2016 to the Central Crime Branch, Chennai, or any other investigating agency.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, APP

¶11

This petition has been filed to transfer the investigation in FIR No.400 of 2016 to the Central Crime Branch, Chennai, or any other investigating agency.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶13

When the matter was taken up for consideration, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions, submitted that investigation in Crime No.400 of 2016 has been completed and closure report has been filed before the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, after due notice to the de facto complainant.

¶14

Taking into consideration the nature of allegations in the FIR, this is not a fit case to order transfer of investigation. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file protest application before the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in terms of the law laid down

¶15

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

¶16

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi Vs Irshad Ali reported in 2013 [5] SCC 762.

¶17

With the above observation, this petition is closed.

¶18

gya

¶19

s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The VII Metropolitan Magistrate
Egmore, Chennai.
2. do thro the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
B-1, North Beach Police Station,
Chennai-600 001.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, Advocate SR 46015
gj(co)
prk1/9 CRL.OP.No.14644 of 2016

¶20

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

Leelesh Kumar v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leelesh Kumar v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Ponram Vs Karpagam @ Santhakumari

S. Mukanchand Bothra, Vs P. Mani

R.Surya Prakash Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kumar @ Button Kumar Vs State Rep by

S.Jayakumar Vs J.Dhanalakshmi

A.S.Rajesh Vs the State Rep.by