Dismissed

M.Rajagopal, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC16 Jun 2017CRL OP(MD)/6848/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Crl. O.P. filed under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner sought withdrawal of investigation and transfer to another agency. The bench held that investigation was closed as a mistake of fact and no transfer was required. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed with liberty to file protest before Judicial Magistrate.

M.Rajagopal, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.06.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶4

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.6848 of 2017

M.Rajagopal

: Petitioner

-Vs-

The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, Nainarkovil Police Station, Paramakudi Taluk,

¶10

Ramanathapuram. (Crime No.38/2017)

¶11

The C.B.C.I.D Police, Ramanathapuram Range, Ramanathapuram. : Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to withdraw the investigation in Crime No.38 of 2017 pending on the file of the second respondent police and transfer the same and entrust the investigation to the third respondent with a direction to investigate the case in accordance with law and with a direction to conduct further investigation within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Jerin Mathew

¶14

For Respondents :Mr.K.Anbarasan

¶15

Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that the investigation in Cr.No.38 of 2017 was completed and the same was closed as mistake of fact on 05.05.2017 and the refer charge sheet notice has also been served on the complainant. The same has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.

¶18

2.That apart on reading of the FIR, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to order transfer of investigation. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file protest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

¶19

¶20

of this order. A copy of the closure report has also been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar.

¶21

In the result the Criminal Original petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar (AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶22

The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Nainarkovil Police Station, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram. (Crime No.38/2017) 3. The C.B.C.I.D Police, Ramanathapuram Range, Ramanathapuram.

¶23

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.M.JERIN MATHEW, Advocate, SR No. 60516. RMK/SSL JS/MR/SAR2/23.06.2017/2P/6C CRL.O.P.(MD)No.6848 of 2017 16.06.2017

¶24

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

M.Rajagopal, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajagopal, 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

Singaravelu @ Singaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

C.Rabeek Raja@Raja Bai Vs the Inspector of Police

R.P.Deivajothi Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthilkumar Vs R.Suganya

Ramar @ Ramachandhran @ Lathif Vs the Inspector of Police

Perumal Vs the Inspector of Police