Disposed

S.Pushpanathan, v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC28 Nov 2016CRL OP/25772/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the petitioner that the respondent police must complete the investigation for Crime No.708/2016 as expeditiously as possible. Neither party was required to strictly adhere to a time-bound manner due to the late registration of the FIR on 18.11.2016. Thus, the petition is closed with an order for speedy investigation.

What did the court decide?

The police are directed to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible.

S.Pushpanathan, Vs the Commissioner of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.11.2016

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.25772 of 2016

¶6

S.Pushpanathan ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Commissioner of Police, Thiruppur district. 2. The Inspector of Police 15, Velampalayam Police Station, Thiruppur District.

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to direct the 2nd respondent police to conduct further investigation and include the offence relating under Section 341 and 324 of IPC while filing the final report in Crime No.708/2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajesh Kanna For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶11

This criminal original petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent police to conduct further investigation and include the offence under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC while filing the final report in Crime No.708/2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent police.

¶12

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

¶13

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the FIR itself has been registered only on 18.11.2016.

¶14

Under such circumstances, no positive direction can be given to the respondent police to complete the investigation in a time bound manner. However, the respondent police is

¶15

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

¶16

directed to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible.

¶17

With the above direction, this petition is closed.

¶18

-Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
mk
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Thiruppur district.
2. The Inspector of Police
15, Velampalayam Police Station,
Thiruppur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.A.Rajesh Kanna Advocate sr 69373
Crl.O.P.No.25772 of 2016
nml(co)
aa02/01/2017

¶19

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

S.Pushpanathan, v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Pushpanathan, v. the Commissioner 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

M.Thiagarajan Vs the Commissioner of Police

Ramesh, M/44 Vs Raghunathan

The Deputy Superintendent of Vs K.Vediyappan

D.Vimalanathan Vs The District Collector

Tmt.S.Manjari Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Periyasamy, M/Aged About 48YRS Vs the State Rep. by