Disposed

Murugesan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC18 Sept 2019CRL OP/23205/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. under Section 482 CrPC praying for transfer of investigation to CBCID. Court rejected transfer noting inquest in progress. Instead, directed D.S.P. Thittakudi to investigate expeditiously and monitor process on a day-to-day basis.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thittakudi, to monitor the investigation of Crime No.157 of 2019 on a day-to-day basis and endeavour to complete it expeditiously.

Murugesan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.23205 of 2019

¶6

Murugesan ...Petitioner
Vs
1.xxx
2.xxx
3.xxx
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Thittakudi Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
6. The Additional Director General
of Police,
CBCID, Guindy,
Chennai - 600032. ...Respondents
(Respondents 1 to 3 are not necessary
parties and hence, deleted vide order
dated 28.08.2019)

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to directing the 4^th respondent to withdraw and transfer the case in Crime No.157 of 2019 on the file of the 5^th respondent to the 6^th respondent CBCID independent agency to conduct further investigation in the above case.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan

¶9

The prayer in the present petition is for transfer of the investigation. The petitioner herein has predominantly raised a ground stating that though the case has been registered under

¶10

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

¶11

Section 174 Cr.P.C., the respondents have not altered the offence and no effective steps have been taken to arrest the culprit.

¶12

It is seen that the complaint has been registered on 07.08.2019 and that the inquest proceedings are under progress. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the respondents are being dormant in investigation and transferring the investigation on this ground would not be proper.

¶13

Nevertheless, if the petitioner is of the view that there isn't effective progress in the investigation, the ends of justice would be secured, if such an investigation is directed to be monitored by an higher official.

¶14

In the light of the above observations, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, having jurisdiction over the 5^th respondent herein namely Thittakudi Police Station, shall monitor the investigation in Crime No.157 of 2019 on a day to day basis. The 5^th respondent herein shall endeavour to complete the investigation, as expeditiously as possible.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar hvk (Note: Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order to The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thittakudi) To

¶16

The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. 2. The Inspector of Police, Thittakudi Police Station, Cuddalore District. 3. The Additional Director General of Police,

¶17

CBCID, Guindy, Chennai - 600032.

¶18

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

¶19

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶20

Copy TO

¶21

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thittakudi.

¶22

+1cc to Mr.M.Velmurugan, Advocate, S.R.No. 80018

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.23205 of 2019 VG I(CO) GN(01/11/2019)

¶24

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

Murugesan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Mahendran, Age 50 Vs State by

V.Anbazhagan Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Police

R.Nataraj Vs the State Rep.by

Raja Vs the Inspector General of Police

V.Uma Devi Vs the Joint Commissioner of Police

Rajesh Menon Vs the Inspector of Police