Disposed

A.Alagar v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC21 Jun 2017CRL OP(MD)/4526/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged closure of Case No. 222/2016 following death of his son. Court found no infirmity in investigation as report indicated suicide via poisoning. Directed Tahsildar to forward records to Judicial Magistrate No. 2 and give petitioner time to file protest application before jurisdictional Magistrate per Vinay Tyagi.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahsildar to forward original records to Judicial Magistrate No. 2 and permission to petitioner to file protest application before Magistrate.

A.Alagar Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4526 of 2017

¶6

A.Alagar : Petitioner / Defacto Complainant

¶7

-Vs.-

¶8

1.The Superintendent of Police Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, Kariapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶10

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

¶11

CBCID, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. : Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to issue a direction, directing the withdrawal of the case in Crime No.222 of 2016 pending on the file of respondent No.2 and entrust the same to respondent No.3 for investigation of the case by a competent officer and file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandakumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan

¶14

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Pursuant to the death of the petitioner's son, a case in Crime No.222 of 2016 was registered on 04.09.2016 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the second respondent police, to transfer which, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the investigation in Crime No.222 of 2016 was conducted and during the course of investigation, the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem and after obtaining the postmortem report and viscera report and examining other witnesses, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the police have closed the case and submitted a closure report to the Executive Magistrate on 15.02.2017.

¶19

The petitioner himself has filed a copy of the postmortem report in the typed-set of papers, which clearly shows that

¶20

¶21

there is no mark of violence of injuries on the body of the deceased. The final opinion of the post-mortem doctor is that the deceased would appear to have died of organo phosphorus insecticide poisoning. The final report of the police shows that the marriage of the deceased was inter-caste marriage and after marriage, his wife got estranged from him, on account of which, he was in a state of depression and had committed suicide by consuming poison. Thus, this Court does not find any serious infirmity in the investigation. However, the Tahsildar, (*) Kariapatti, is directed to take photographs of all the records and forward the original records to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Virudhunagar, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, four weeks time is given to the petitioner to file a protest application, if any, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Virudhunagar. On filing of such protest application, the same shall be dealt with by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi Vs. State of U.P and Others reported in Laws (All)-2010-8-369.

¶22

This Criminal Original Petition is closed with the above direction.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar

¶25

(*)AMENDED AS PER ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 21/06/2017

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

(*)TO BE SUBSTITUTED ORDER ALREADY DESPATCHED ON 21/04/2017

¶30

Judicial Magistrate No.2, Virudhunagar.

¶31

(*)2. The Tahsildar, Kariapatti

¶32

The Superintendent of Police Virudhunagar District,

¶33

Virudhunagar.

¶34

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

¶35

CBCID, Virudhunagar,

¶36

Virudhunagar District.

¶37

The Inspector of Police, Kariapatti Police Station,

¶38

Virudhunagar District.

¶39

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.N.ANANDAKUMAR, Advocate, SR No. 53081 SML

¶40

PSM/JC/SAR4/21.04.2017/2P/8C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RL/KP/SAR4/8C/2P/28/6/2017

¶41

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4526 of 2017 Dated: 18.04.2017

A.Alagar v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Alagar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Thangavel, Vs the Inspector of Police

Alagusundaram, Vs the Inspector of Police

Suresh Vs the Inspector of Police

S.J. Sundar Singh Vs Indra

Sivasubramani Vs the Superintendent of Police

M. Rajasekaran Vs the Inspector of Police