Allowed

C. Sankara Subramanian v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC18 Aug 2016CRL OP(MD)/19080/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., granting four months to the accused to complete investigation and file a final report, citing a one-and-a-half-year inaction by police.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to file a final report in Crime No.225 of 2015 within four months.

C. Sankara Subramanian Vs the Superintendent of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.08.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19080 of 2015

C.Sankra Subramanian

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2^nd respondent to file a final report in Crime No.225 of 2015 on the file of the 2^nd respondent police within a stipulated time to be fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar

¶14

For respondents : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan, Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

It is an application seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to file a final report in Crime No.225 of 2015 within a time frame.

¶17

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents.

¶18

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even after a lapse of one year and three months from the date of registration of the case, the 2^nd respondent did not take any efforts to file the final report. Hence, the petitioner has come up with this petition for the aforesaid prayer.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on instructions, would submit that the second respondent requires

¶20

¶21

four months time to complete the investigation and to file the final report in Crime No.225 of 2015.

¶22

5.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of

¶23

with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to complete the investigation and to file the final report in Crime No.225 of 2015 before the Court concerned within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

gcg To

¶29

1.The Superintendent of police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

¶30

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶31

Sivakasi Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶32

3.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶33

Madurai.

¶34

GJM/SKS/RR/2.9.16-2p-4c

¶35

Crl.O.P(MD)No.19080 of 2015

¶36

18.08.2016

¶37

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

C. Sankara Subramanian v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Sankara Subramanian 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

R.Ravi Vs the Inspector of Police

Thasaratha Perumal Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

A.Ranjith Alias Ranjithkumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Seethaiammal Vs the Commissioner of Police

M.Lavanya Vs the Superintendent of Police

Selvarathinam Vs the Insepector of Police