Disposed

Meenakshi v. the District Superintendent of

Madras HC25 Apr 2019CRL OP/11714/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Cr.P.C. transfer petition, the Court refused to interfere with a four-year-old investigation but directed the investigating police to complete the inquiry and file a final report within eight weeks under monitoring by the superior police authority.

What did the court decide?

Rejected transfer petition. Directed second respondent to complete investigation and file final report within eight weeks under monitoring of first respondent.

Meenakshi Vs the District Superintendent of — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.11714 of 2016

¶6

Meenakshi ... Petitioner/Defacto

¶7

Complainant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Superintendent of Police, Vivekanandha Salai, Ramnagar, Coimbatore. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore. ...Respondents/Complainant

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to transfer the investigation in Crime No.158 of 2015, pending on the file of the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st respondent in the interest of justice.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Ravi Chandran For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶12

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to transfer the investigation in Crime No.158 of 2015, pending on the file of the second respondent to the first respondent.

¶13

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one Maragathamani of Devempalayam and Geetha of Periyanaickenpalayam, who were the money lenders to whom petitioner's son Sakthivel gave his property situated at Sakkar Samakkulam as security and received money as loan. The said money lenders demanded exorbitant interest from the petitioner's son. Due to the torture given by the said money lenders, petitioner's son was unable to bear the pressure and committed suicide in the petitioner's house on 08.07.2016.

¶14

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the second respondent police is conducting investigation and the same is yet to be disposed of.

¶15

4.Heard, Mr.A.E.Ravi Chandran, learned counsel appearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional

¶16

Public Prosecutor appearing for the first and second respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

5.It is seen from the records that the FIR registered in the year 2015. After a period of four years, transfer of investigation cannot be considered and it would affect the investigation.

¶18

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not want to interfere with the investigation at this stage. However, the second respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is also directed to monitor and also ensure that the second respondent shall file a final report as stipulated by this Court.

¶19

7.With the above direction, this Criminal Original
Petition is disposed of.
pam
-sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District Superintendent of Police,
Vivekanandha Salai,
Ramnagar, Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai – 104.

¶20

C.C. to MR.A.E.RAVICHANDRAN Advocate SR.NO. 40555

¶21

SAI (CO) VS 03.06.2019 CRL.O.P.No.11714 of 2016

¶22

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

Meenakshi v. the District Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi v. the District 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.Velu Vs State by

S.Shankaran Vs the Inspector of Police

V.M.Kothandaraman Vs State by

Kudiyarasu Vs the Superintendent of Police

Durai Kuppusamy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Eganathan, Aged 28 Years, Vs State Rep. by