Disposed

S.Fairozdeen v. Superintendent of Police

Madras HC28 Aug 2020CRL OP/13215/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court directed the police to complete investigation and file a final report within twelve weeks after recovering stolen cars from the accused, addressing inaction despite an FIR.

What did the court decide?

Directed the police to complete investigation after recovery of stolen cars and file a final report within twelve weeks.

S.Fairozdeen Vs Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :28.08.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.13215 of 2020

¶6

S.Fairozdeen S/o.Saukkath Ali ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram Collector Campus, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu - 631 501.

¶8

2.The Inspector of Police, C1 Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu – 602 105. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., direction to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22^nd June 2020 to recover the stolen vehicle, Impound the vehicle at the time of issuing Traffic Challan or issue Non Traceable Report.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Shanavaskhan

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan

¶12

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed for direction, directing the second respondent police to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22^nd June 2020 to recover the stolen vehicle, Impound the vehicle at the time of issuing Traffic Challan or issue Non Traceable Report.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after registering the FIR, the second respondent even till today did not recover any stolen car from the accused persons. He further submitted that simply, the FIR is pending without any further action.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that immediately after receipt of the FIR, due to Covid-19 pandamic circumstances the second respondent could not able to act upon the FIR in Crime No.160 of 2020. Now, they are proceeding with investigation and about to recover all the stolen cars from the accused.

¶18

In view of the above, the second respondent is directed

¶19

to complete the investigation after recovery of stolen cars from the accused persons and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rri
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram Collector Campus,
Kancheepuram,
Tamil Nadu - 631 501.
2.The Inspector of Police,
C1 Sriperumbudur Police Station,
Kancheepuram,
Tamil Nadu – 602 105.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.13215 of 2020
mp[co]
srg 06/10/2020

¶21

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

S.Fairozdeen v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Fairozdeen v. 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

Babu Vs S.Chitra

K.Suresh Vs the State Rep.by

S.Indu Rani Vs the Inspector of Police

Annakkodi Vs State Rep. by

Annakkodi Vs State Rep. by

J.Sasikumar Vs State Rep. by