Dismissed

M.Anandhi v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC23 Sept 2020CRL OP/14815/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a transfer of investigation petition, the Court rejected the plea to shift the investigation to another agency, directing the respondent to complete the inquiry within 16 weeks and take steps to secure absconding accused.

What did the court decide?

The transfer of investigation was dismissed; the respondent police were directed to complete the investigation within 16 weeks and secure the accused persons as provided in law.

M.Anandhi Vs the Commissioner of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.09.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.14815 of 2020 M.Anandhi, F/A-31, D/o.Mani, No.607, 13^th Block Kesava Pillai Park, Demallows Road, Perambur Barracks, Chennai – 600 012. ...Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Vs

¶6

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶7

State represented by Inspector of Police, W-16, Pulianthope All Woman Police Station, Chennai. ...Respondents/Complainant

¶8

Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent to transfer the investigation in Crime No.9 of 2020 under Sections 417, 376 and 109 of IPC on the file of the second respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents: Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This petition has been filed for transfer of investigation in Crime No.9 of 2020 from the file of the 2^nd respondent to the file of any other investigating agency for proper investigation.

¶12

2.It is averred that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner as against the accused persons, the 2^nd respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.9 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 417, 376 and 109 of IPC alleging that the 1^st accused on the protest of marriage falsely promised and had physical relationship. Thereafter he failed to marry the victim and hence, the complaint. After registration of complaint, the 2^nd

¶13

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

¶14

respondent did not even conduct any enquiry and did not taken any steps to secure the accused persons. Therefore, the petitioner sought for transfer of investigation.

¶15

3.Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

submitted that the crime was registered only on 14.08.2020. After registration of the FIR, the 2^nd respondent so far recorded the statement from six persons and also made request to the concerned Magistrate for recording the evidence statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Further the victim was subjected to medical examination and report is awaited. Now, the accused persons are absconding and due to COVID-19 pandemic circumstances, the 2^nd respondent could not able to secure the accused persons.

¶17

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶18

5.Considering the above submission, now the 2^nd respondent is in progress with the full-fledged investigation and so far examined six witnesses. The 2^nd respondent is also awaiting for medical report and taking steps to secure the accused persons. At this circumstances, the change of investigation would affect entire investigation so far as conducted by the 2^nd respondent herein. Therefore, this transfer of investigation cannot be considered and dismissed. However the 2^nd respondent is directed to complete the investigation and to file a final report within the period of sixteen weeks from the receipt of copy of this order. The allegations are very serious in nature and as such the 2^nd respondent also directed to take necessary steps to secure the accused persons in the manner known to law. The 1^st respondent is directed to monitor the investigation.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶25

The Inspector of Police, W-16, Pulianthope All Woman Police Station, Chennai.

¶26

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

¶27

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.14815 of 2020

¶29

NMI(CO) RV(21/10/2020)

¶30

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

M.Anandhi v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Anandhi v. the Commissioner 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

S.Fairozdeen Vs Superintendent of Police

M.Sahul Hameed Vs The Inspector of Police

Sathyamoorthy Vs The Inspector of Police

Selvaraj Textiles Vs the Superintendent Police

A.Mayilvahanan Vs The Inspector of Police

Ponnusamy Vs The Commissioner of Police