Dismissed

T.Settu v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC9 Sept 2019CRL OP/21212/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court closed this criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to withdraw and transfer an investigation. The court held the prayer unmaintainable as the investigation had already been completed and closed with a closure report served on the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; direction to withdraw investigation not granted as case was already closed.

T.Settu Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.21212 of 2019

¶6

T.Settu ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam,
Nagapattinam District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Poompuhar police Station,
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District. ...Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to issue a direction directing the 1^st respondent to withdraw the investigation pending on the file of 2^nd respondent in Crime No.189 of 2015 and transfer the same to 3^rd respondent and consequently direct to 3^rd respondent to investigate and file a final report.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shiva Kumar

¶11

for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.C.Iyyapparaj

¶13

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to direct the the 1^st respondent to withdraw the investigation pending on the file of 2^nd respondent in Crime No.189 of 2015 and transfer the same to 3^rd respondent and consequently direct to 3^rd respondent to investigate and file a final report.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶17

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

¶18

Today when the matter was called, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents filed a status report of the second respondent herein in which it has been categorically stated that the investigation in Crime No.189 of 2015 was completed and closed as “Undetectable” on 12.10.2016. The closure report was also served on the petitioner herein/defacto complainant through R.C.S.No.1 of 2016 on 12.10.2016 and the same has been acknowledged by him.

¶19

In view of the closure of the petitioner's complaint, the prayer to complete the investigation cannot be maintained.

¶20

Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands closed.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
krk
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam,
Nagapattinam District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Poompuhar police Station,
Nagapattinam,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam,
Nagapattinam District.
Copy To
The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.K.M.Vijayan Associates, Advocate, S.R.No. 77969
Crl.O.P.No.21212 of 2019
PM(CO)
GN(15/10/2019)

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.21212 of 2019

¶23

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

T.Settu v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Settu 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

M.Raghu Vs the State Rep by

M.Liyakath Ali Vs the State Rep by Its

A.Jacob Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.S.Rajan Vs State Rep by

K.R.Loganathan Vs the State Rep by Its

R.Andal Vs The Commissioner of Police