Disposed

D.Murali v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Jun 2021CRL OP/10848/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a Criminal Original Petition filed by a de-facto complainant seeking a direction for the completion of a delayed investigation. The Court observed that despite the investigation being completed, the trial had been pending since 2012. The Court directed the respondent to complete the trial and files within six months of the normal functioning of the Courts.

What did the court decide?

Direction to complete the trial within six months from the date of normal functioning of the Courts.

D.Murali Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :24.06.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.10848 of 2021

D.Murali

... Petitioner

Versus

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-II, Team-I, Egmore Chennai.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-II, Chennai, the respondent herein to complete investigation in Crime No.157 of 2012 and file Final Report within a time frame.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vinoth Kumar

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodharan, Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petition has been filed by the de-facto complainant seeking final report since the case is of the year 2004 and no charge sheet filed.

¶16

2.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submits that the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed and the same is taken on file in C.C.No.720 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur on 28.06.2016, thereafter, on the point of jurisdiction the case was transferred to the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thambarm in C.C.No.100 of 2020 on 23.12.2020. Further, he submits that the accused approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.28688 of 2017, in which stay was granted. The petitioner was directed to enter appearance in Crl.O.P.No.28688 of 2017 make submissions and get the stay vacated and get appropriate orders and depending upon the outcome of the quash petition, the Trial Court is to complete the trial by giving top priority, since the case is

¶17

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

¶18

pending from the year 2012, without any further delay, within a period of six months from the date of normal functioning of the Courts.

¶19

3.With the above observation and direction, the Criminal

¶20

Original Petition is disposed of.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

klt

¶26

¶27

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-II, Team-I, Egmore Chennai.

¶28

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.A.P.Nanda Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.29674

¶30

CRL.O.P.No.10848 of 2021

¶31

RK(CO)

¶32

PM(30/07/2021)

¶33

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

D.Murali v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Murali v. the Inspector 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.Dhanasekaran Vs R.Shenbagavalli

D.Vidhya Vs R.Saravanakumar

M.Iliyas, S/O.Mohammed Shaib Vs State Rep.by Its the Inspector

R.Kumar Vs State Rep. by

P.Priscilla Vs State Rep.by

M.Arunadevi Vs The State rep by Inspector of Police