Allowed

P.Mani v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC26 Apr 2016CRL OP/9276/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the police to complete investigation and file a final report in a pending case. The High Court directed the 1st respondent to complete the investigation and file the report within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No. 25 of 2013 and file a final report within six months.

P.Mani Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.04.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.9276 of 2016

¶6

P.Mani .. Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Vs. 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Nethimedu, Salem.

¶7

2.The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Nethimedu, Salem. .. Respondents/ Complainant

¶8

Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the 2^nd respondent to complete the investigation in crime No.25 of 2013 pending on the file of the second respondent and file a final report within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Thangavel For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER The petitioner has come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent police to file a final report in Crime No.25 of 2013.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, a case has been registered in Crime No.25 of 2013 for the offences

¶12

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

¶13

punishable under Sections 120(B), 467, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC. However, the second respondent has not shown any interest to investigate the matter and lay a final report. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present petition for the relief as stated above.

¶14

Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶15

Considering the averments made in the affidavit and also perusing the typed set of papers, the 1^st respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.25 of 2013 and file a final report, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶16

The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the
above direction.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
cse
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Nethimedu, Salem.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Nethimedu, Salem.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+1 cc to Mr.MR.Thangavel Advocate sr.25962/16
Crl.O.P.No.9276 of 2016

¶17

aa19/05/2016

¶18

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

P.Mani v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mani v. the Deputy Superintendent of

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

V.Diwakaran Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Chitra, Vs The District Collector

A.Aruna (Aged 30 Years) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.Ramachandran Vs the Inspector of Police

Pichandi Vs the Inspector of Police

C. Subramani, Vs State Rep. by Inspector of