Allowed

Uma Bhuvaneswari v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC5 Feb 2016CRL OP/956/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted a direction to the second respondent, the local police station, to conduct further investigation into a robbery case where the initial final report was dismissed due to defects, including the absence of the accused's name.

What did the court decide?

Directed to conduct further investigation into the case in Crime No.264 of 2014 for the offence under section 379 IPC and file a final report.

Uma Bhuvaneswari Vs the Superintendent of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.02.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.956 of 2016

¶6

Uma Bhuvaneswari ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. State rep. by
The Superintendent of Police,
Kanchipuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
B.6 Magarval Police Station,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent to further
investigate the matter in the above crime No.264 of 2014.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner has come forward with this petition for a direction to the second respondent to further investigate the matter in Crime No.264 of 2014 stating that on the basis of the complaint of this petitioner, a case in Crime No.294 of 2014 has been registered for the offence under section 379 IPC. In that, it is true the name of the proposed accused has not been mentioned. The case of the petitioner is that when she was proceeding near Mudaliar Garden, at that time a person came and snatched her thali chain. So, she has given a complaint. The second respondent has not investigated the matter, but filed a final report.

¶10

The second respondent was directed to appear before this Court and he appeared before this Court.

¶11

On perusal of the page 4 of the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the petitioners, nothing has been mentioned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ except crime number and section, which shows that this RCS has

¶12

not been filed in accordance with law. Hence, this is a fit case to give direction for further investigation.

¶13

Considering the submissions made on both sides, the second respondent is directed to conduct further investigation in the case in Crime No.264 of 2014 for the offence under section 379 IPC and file a final report, as expeditiously as possible.

¶14

With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vrc
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Kanchipuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
B.6 Magarval Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan, Advocate, S.R.No.8154

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.956 of 2016

¶17

GJ(CO) CA(16/02/2016)

¶18

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

Uma Bhuvaneswari v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Bhuvaneswari 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

N.Thirunavukkarasu Vs the State Rep. by

S.Suguna Vs State by

D.Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

J.Thahir Ahmed Vs State Rep. by

P.Manickam Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Periyathambi Vs the Commissioner of Police