Allowed

S. Subramanian v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Oct 2018CRL OP(MD)/3587/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court quashed a final report under Section 294(b) IPC where the investigating officer was also the complainant, holding that such dual roles vitiate the fair trial process, as per Supreme Court law.

What did the court decide?

The final report filed by the respondent police in STC No.145 of 2018 is hereby quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

S. Subramanian Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.10.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3587 of 2018 and Crl.M.P (MD) Nos.1708 and 1709 of 2018

¶7

S.Subramanian

¶8

S.Arunachalam

¶9

... Petitioners/Accused Rank 1&2

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Sub Inspector of Police, Uthumalai Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Crime No.287 of 2017 ... Respondent

¶12

Karthik, Sub Inspector of Police, Uthumalai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

... Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶14

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the STC No.145 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi For Respondent-1 : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash final report filed by the respondent police which has been taken on file in STC No.145 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam.

¶18

The final report has been filed against the petitioner for an alleged offence under section 294(b) IPC.

¶19

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case both the complainant as well as the investigating officer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are the same.

¶20

¶21

4.It can be seen from records that the First Information Report was registered by the second respondent and he is conducting the investigation and he has also filed the final report. Therefore the very same investigation in this case is vitiated. This case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohan Lal- vs- The State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No.1880 of 201 1 , wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the foundation of the fair trial postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person.

¶22

In view of the above the final report filed by the respondent police in STC No.145 of 2018 is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (Writs)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶27

¶28

The Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam

¶29

The Sub Inspector of Police Uthumalai Police Station Tirunelveli District

¶30

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

¶31

- 1 CC TO Mr.K.SUDALAIYANDI, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 89721

¶32

AAV

¶33

TE/SV/SAR-2 : 12/11/2018 : 2P/5C

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3587 of 2018 and Crl.M.P (MD) Nos.1708 and 1709 of 2018 10.10.2018

¶35

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

S. Subramanian v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Subramanian v. the Sub Inspector 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

Dr. K. Thangavelu Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajagopal Vs the Inspector of Police

Thilaga, Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthuraj Vs the Inspector of Police

I. Josi Vs K. Velu

T.P.S.Ponnudurai Vs K.Raju