Remanded

R.Swaminathan v. the State of T.N., Rep.by

Madras HC22 Feb 2019CRL OP/1350/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petition to transfer police investigation of a cheating case to the CBI. Instead, it directed the police to complete investigation and file a final report within two months under court monitoring.

What did the court decide?

First respondent police directed to complete investigation and file final report within two months; Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB directed to monitor.

R.Swaminathan Vs the State of T.N., Rep.by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.02.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1350 of 2019

¶6

R.Swaminathan ...Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
E.D.F.-I, Team-II
Vepery,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Corporation
Chennai.
3.The Director General of Police,
DGP Office,
Mylapore,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to transfer the investigation of
the crime registered in Crime No.210 of 2015 on the file of the
1 st respondent police to the Central Bureau of Investigation or
any other appropriate special agency of investigation as deemed
fit and proper.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Subrahmaniam For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶9

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to transfer the investigation of the crime registered in Crime No.210 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent police to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other appropriate special agency of investigation.

¶10

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

¶11

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that crime No.210 of 2015 has been registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of IPC on 10.06.2015 and thereafter the respondent police did not take any proper step to investigate the complaint. Hence, he prays to allow this petition.

¶12

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that they received export opinion from the Forensic Lab, and the investigation is almost completed and hence Crime NO.210 of 2015, cannot be transferred to other investigation agency. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

¶13

4. Heard Mr.K.M.Subrahmaniam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

¶14

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to transfer the investigation in Crime No.210 of 2015. However, considering the crime of the year 2015, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file the final report, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB, Chennai is directed to monitor the investigation done by the first respondent.

¶15

6. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

mpa/rts

¶18

¶19

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, E.D.F.-I, Team-II, Vepery, Chennai.

¶20

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

¶21

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.

¶22

3.The Director General of Police, DGP Office, Mylapore, Chennai.

¶23

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.1350 of 2019
LN(CO)
GMY(03/04/2019)

¶25

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

R.Swaminathan v. the State of T.N., Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Swaminathan v. the State of T.N., Rep.by

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

K.Karthik Vs the State Rep by

Perumal, Aged 70 Years Vs State by

Kaliyaperumal, Vs the Superintendent of Police

E.Manivannan Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Felix Edward Vs The Asst. General Manager/

M/s.Myoung Shin Automotives Vs The Superintendent of Police