Disposed

P.J.Prabhakar Israel, v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC14 Sept 2017CRL OP/7022/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioner complained of improper investigation. The court accepted the petitioner's claim as satisfied based on statements in the counter affidavit filed by the Public Prosecutor. Consequently, the petition was closed, and connected incidental petitions were also closed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition was closed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

P.J.Prabhakar Israel, Vs the State Rep… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.09.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.7022 of 2017 &

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.5095 and 5096 of 2017

¶8

P.J.Prabhakar Israel ... Petitioner
Vs
State represented by
The Sub-Inspector of Police
Traffic Investigation
No.2 Kasimedu Police Station
Chennai – 600 013 ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent the Sub-Inspector of Police, N2, Kasimedu, Traffic Investigation, Chennai to conduct proper and fair investigation in C.C.No.676 of 2015 and to file proper records, deposit all the seizures before the trial Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.K.Anniah For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan, APP

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to conduct proper and fair investigation in C.C.No.676 of 2015 and to file proper records and deposit all the seizures before the trial Court.

¶15

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶16

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶17

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent police

¶18

have not conducted proper and fair investigation in C.C.No.676 of

¶19

2015, since they have not produced proper records and seized

¶20

materials before the trial Court.

¶21

4.Today when the matter was called, the learned Additional

¶22

Public Prosecutor has filed a counter affidavit, in which it has been stated that originally the respondent had laid a charge sheet before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate on 01.07.2015 and the same was taken on file on 10.07.2015. Subsequently, the respondent had file a re-final report along with explanation of check report of two wheeler issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector.

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

I am of the view that the petitioner may not have any further

¶26

grievance in consideration of the statement made by the respondent in the counter affidavit stating that the check-report of the two-wheeler

¶27

has already been filed.

¶28

Hence, this criminal original petition stands closed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.09.2017
Index:Yes
gpa
To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police
Traffic Investigation
No.2 Kasimedu Police Station
Chennai – 600 013
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH.J,

gpa

Crl.O.P.No.7022 of 2017&
Crl.M.P.Nos.5095 and 5096 of 2017

¶34

14.09.2017

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

P.J.Prabhakar Israel, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.J.Prabhakar Israel, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Krishnan Vs the Forest Officer

Shahul Hameed Vs the Inspector of Police

A.P.Pichandi, Aged 43 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Prabakaran, 28 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Polcie

S.Arulsamy, (Age 46 Yrs) Vs v.Cheeralan

Yelgris Foods India Vs The District Collector