Disposed

Ponnusamy v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC23 Sept 2020CRL OP(MD)/10090/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking a direction to complete investigation and file a final report for offences under IPC Sections 420, 419, 465, 468, and 471. Considering the COVID-19 situation but noting victim availability, the court directed the police to complete the investigation and file the report within three months, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to complete investigation pending in Crime No.238 of 2019 and file the final report within three months.

Ponnusamy Vs The Commissioner of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD)No.10090 of 2020

¶2

Ponnusamy

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶4

DATED : 23.09.2020 CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD)No.10090 of 2020

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner of Police, O/o.Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.

¶10

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, O/o.Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai,

¶11

Tirunelveli City.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City. (Cr.No.238 of 2019)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the 3^rd respondent to file the final report in Crime No.238 of 2019, dated 15.05.2019, for the offences under Sections 420, 419, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC., under the supervision of the 1^st respondent within a stipulated time frame fixed by this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Velrajan

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.R.Erottuchamy Govt.Advocate (Crl.side)

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to direct the 3^rd respondent to file the final report in Crime No.238 of 2019, for the offences under Sections 420, 419, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC., under the supervision of the 1^st respondent.

¶19

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondent police.

¶20

Mr.R.Erottuchamy, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent Police, on instructions, would submit that after the registration of the FIR, the investigation is in the progressive stage. He would further submit that since the police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

1/3

¶22

CRL OP(MD)No.10090 of 2020

¶23

officers were busy in their duties to combat unprecedented situation arising from the COVID-19 Pandemic, some more time is required to file the final report. The submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is placed on record.

¶24

In general, whenever any information in relation to commission of cognizable or non-cognizable offence is received, the police officer shall adhere to the procedure contemplated under Sections 154 & 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code and after conducting necessary enquiry/investigation, file final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Such investigation under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code shall be completed without any unnecessary delay. Though the delay in filing the final report in the present case is not having any inordinate delay, since the victim is secured, it is very easy for the Police officer to file the final report immediately.

¶25

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, directs the 3^rd respondent Police to complete the investigation in Crime No.238 of 2020, pending on his file and file the final report, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

With the above observations and direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

¶27

Assistant Registrar ()

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

MPK

¶31

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶32

¶33

1.The Commissioner of Police, O/o.Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.

¶34

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

¶35

2/3

¶36

CRL OP(MD)No.10090 of 2020

¶37

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, O/o.Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli City.

¶38

3.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City.

¶39

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶40

CRL OP(MD)No.10090 of 2020 23.09.2020

¶41

VB (05.10.2020) 3P 5C

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

Ponnusamy v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnusamy 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

M.Anandhi Vs the Commissioner of Police

A.Mayilvahanan Vs The Inspector of Police