Dismissed

M.Rajini v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC13 Nov 2019CRL OP/26592/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of investigation under Section 482 CrPC due to inaction. Court noted offences were altered and directed the responding police station to complete investigation within four months under SP supervision.

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent to complete investigation in Crime No. 27 of 2019 within four months and file final report, monitored by Superintendent of Police.

M.Rajini Vs the Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.11.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.26592 of 2019

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.14218 of 2019

¶8

M.Rajini ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kambainallur Police Station, Karimangalam Taluk, Dharmapuri District 635 202. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to issue suitable directions to transfer the investigation in Crime No.27 of 2019 pending on the file of the 2^nd respondent to CBCID or any other investigation agency.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendiran

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj

¶12

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Since the offences in Crime No.27 of 2019 which was registered under Section 174 C.R.P.C was not altered and also since there was very little progress in the enquiry, the present petitioner herein has been sought for transfer of the investigation from the second respondent to any other investigation agency.

¶15

Today, when the matter was called, it is represented that pursuant to the enquiry, offences 376 and 306 IPC and Section 3 of POCSO Act has been incorporated in the impugned Crime No.27 of 2019. As such, the petitioner's grievance that the offences were not altered has been met. While that being so, it would be

¶16

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

¶17

appropriate for this Court to direct the respondents to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible.

¶18

Since the petitioner herein had made certain averments in the complaint that there is no effective investigation, it would also be appropriate to direct the Superintendent of Police to monitor such investigation.

¶19

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the second respondent herein to complete the investigation in Crime No.27 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible, in any event within a period of four months and file a final report. The said investigation shall be monitored by the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District.

¶20

The above Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of
accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsn/dna
To
1.The Superintendent of Police
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kambainallur Police Station,
Karimangalam Taluk,
Dharmapuri District 635 202.
+1cc to Mr.R.Amburosh, Advocate Sr.94835
Crl.O.P.No.26592 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.14218 of 2019

¶21

mp[co] srg 11/12/2019

¶22

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

M.Rajini v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajini 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

A.Balakrishnan Vs N.Sujatha

B.Gulgresh, Aged 39 Yrs Vs G.Gayathri Devi

R.Rathinaraj Vs the Commissioner of Police

K.Carolin Regina Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Sakunthala Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

R.Vembu Vs the Superintendent of Police