Disposed

Govindaraj v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC6 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/1737/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC sought direction to the second respondent to expedite investigation in Crime No.112 of 2016 and file the final report. The court directed the police officer to file the report within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub-Inspector of Police to expedite investigation and file a final report within three months.

Govindaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1737 of 2018

¶7

Govindaraj ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The State represented by The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadupatty Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadupatti Police Station, Maduari District, the second respondent, to expedite the investigation in Crime No.112 of 2016 pending on his file and to file the final report within the stipulated period as prescribed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.Prabu Ramachandran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, to direct the second respondent to expedite the investigation in Crime No.112 of 2016 within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, the

¶15

¶16

second respondent has registered a case on 27.05.2016 in Crime No.112 of 2016, under Sections 406, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) I.P.C., but so far final report has not been filed.

¶17

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that the investigation is in progress and he seeks three months time for filing final report.

¶18

4.The second respondent is directed to expedite the investigation and file a final report within the period of three months from this date.

¶19

5.With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar (W)

¶21

/True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶25

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadupatty Police Station, Madurai District.

¶26

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶27

+1cc to M/S.S.BALAJI, Advocate SR.No.46708.

¶28

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1737 of 2018 06.02.2018

¶29

ia https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SDS/JC/SAR 4/20.02.2018/2P/5C

Govindaraj v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindaraj 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

Thangaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Mookaiah Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Pandiarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Angeline Percy Sylome Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Velaventhan Vs the Inspector of Police

Faizal Hussian@ Sahib Faizal Vs the Inspector of Police