Allowed

Rameshwar v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC25 Sept 2019CRL OP/4142/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition under Section 482 CrPC, filed regarding the slow investigation into an accident causing death, was allowed. The court transferred further investigation to another police station within the district and directed the Superintendent of Police to monitor it, citing the non-prosecution of CCTV footage availability.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of further investigation from the second respondent police station to another police station within the district under the supervision of the first respondent.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.09.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH Crl.O.P.No.4142 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.2512 of 2019

¶2

Rameshwar ... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

1.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District.

¶5

2.The Inspector of Police, Kavarapettai Station, Tiruvallur Distirct. ... Respondents

¶6

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to transfer the investigation relating to Crime No.55 of 2019 from the file of the 2^nd respondent police to CBCID and to carry out a proper and impartial investigation, under the supervision of the 1^st respondent, in respect of the accident that occurred on 01.02.2019 near ELL KAY YES Marriage Hall, National Highway-16.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi

¶8

For Respondents: Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the accident took place on 02.02.2019 and a complaint was lodged on 05.02.2019 with regard to the death of his brother in the said accident, there is not much progress in the investigation being done by the second respondent/police.

¶11

2.It is the case of the complainant that even though he arrived in Chennai only on 05.02.2019, the First Information Report registered on 02.02.2019 shows the name of the petitioner as de-facto complainant.

¶12

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that barring allegations made by the petitioner, the investigation is being rightly done.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

4.The status report filed by the respondents herein does not address these aspects at all. As such, I find some force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In as much as, the vehicle involved in the accident has been seized and the driver has also been arrested, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to permit the respondents herein to continue the investigation. However, considering the specific allegation of the petitioner that despite availability of CCTV footage of the locality where the accident took place, the second respondent has not taken any steps to apprehend the accused.

¶16

5.The first respondent herein is called upon to transfer further investigation in FIR. No.55 of 2019 from the second respondent herein to some other police station within the District. The first respondent herein shall monitor such investigation at the transferred place.

¶17

6.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands
allowed accordingly. Consequently, connected Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
sbn/klt
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvallur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kavarapettai Station,
Tiruvallur Distirct.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.4142 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.2512 of 2019

¶18

aa15/11/2019

¶19

¶20

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

Rameshwar v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar 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

Gowri Vs State Rep. by

Ellar.Sezhian, Vs the State Rep by Its

M.Twinkle Amala Vs D.Antony Muthu Thangaraj

Jeeva, M/A.31 Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Mr.Ramu Kalanjiam Suresh, Vs M/S.Paceman Finance India

M.Ramasamy, M/a 52 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police