Dismissed

T.L.Prabhakaran, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC20 Apr 2018CRL OP/11870/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed petitions to quash an FIR regarding possession of unaccounted cash. Recognizing an eight-month delay in investigation, the Court directed the investigating officer to complete the inquiry and file a final report within three months.

What did the court decide?

The investigating officer directed to complete investigation and file final report within three months.

T.L.Prabhakaran, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Corruption | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 20.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.11870 to 11873 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.6264 to 6267 of 2018

¶6

T.L.Prabhakaran .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.11870/18
M.Ramachandran .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.11871/18
G.Rameshkumar .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.11872/18
P.Rajesh .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.11873/18
Vs.
1 The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Udhagamandalam,
The Nilgiris District.
2 The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Udhagamandalam,
The Nilgiris District.
3 Mr.A.Subramanian,
Assistant Director,
Office of the District Collectorate,
Fishery Department,
Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District
... Respondents in all Crl.O.Ps

¶7

Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records of the respondents in Cr.No.01 of 2017 on the file of respondent police and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Ilamurugu

¶9

For Respondents : Mr. K.Prabakar

¶10

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

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

¶12

COMMON ORDER

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶14

2 The allegation contained in the complaint given by the Inspection Officer attached to Collectorate, Nilgiris, was that the petitioners, on the eve of Deepavali day, were found in possession of cash which they were not able to explain or account properly. The petitioners herein submit that the money they were in possession, was received as advance from the office to meet out deepavali expenses. However, the Acquittance Register referred by the petitioners is in variation with the petitioners' defence and the said fact is to be investigated.

¶15

3 Since the investigation is not yet completed, the Court cannot go into the veracity of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners.

¶16

4 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners are put to great hardship since there is no progress in the investigation for the past eight months.

¶17

5 This Court, finds some force in the above said submission. Therefore, directs the investigating officer to complete the investigation and file a final report before the Court concerned as expeditious as possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order .

¶18

6 In the result, these petitions to quash FIR are dismissed with the above direction.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(AUDIT)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

rpl

¶24

¶25

1 The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

¶26

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District.

¶27

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

¶28

2 The Inspector of Police,

¶29

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,

¶30

Udhagamandalam,

¶31

The Nilgiris District.

¶32

3 The Public Prosecutor,

¶33

High Court, Madras.

¶34

+4cc to Mr.G.ILAMURUGU, Advocate, S.R.No. 29620 TO 29623

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.11870 to 11873 of 2018

¶36

BR(CO)
TR(07/05/2018)

¶37

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

T.L.Prabhakaran, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.L.Prabhakaran, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

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

M/S.Stepstone Promoters Pvt. Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Sohanlal, Aged 57 Years Vs State Rep. by

Christopher Gnanasekara- Vs Madras Christian College Asson

K.Nandakumar, Male Aged Vs the Superintendent of Police

T.Jayakumar, Age 53 Vs State Rep by

M.H.Ansari Vs State by