Disposed

K.Radha v. Commissioner of Police Egmore Ch

Madras HC9 Jul 2021CRL OP/23932/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Madras accepted an undertaking from the Government Advocate and directed the investigation in a medical negligence case to be completed within ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

No further orders required; undertaking accepted for investigation completion within ten weeks; case to be monitored by Assistant Commissioner of Police.

K.Radha Vs Commissioner of Police Egmore Ch — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.23932 of 2018

¶6

K.Radha ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep.by Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai-7.

¶9

Inspector of Police, Mylapore Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to transfer the investigation in Cr.No.1709 of 2016 on the file of the 2^nd respondent to the 3^rd respondent.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner has filed this petition to issue a direction to transfer the investigation in Cr.No.1709 of 2016 on the file of the 2^nd respondent to the 3^rd respondent.

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that the he has made a complaint on 08.07.2021 about the death of her husband due to gross negligence of doctor and certain para-medical staff working in Kauvery Hospital, Alwarpet, Chennai. Though initially the law enforcing agency has registered a case in FIR NO.1709 of 2019, investigation has not been properly conducted and they have not sent samples for laboratory test. The petitioner has

¶15

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

¶16

also requested the law enforcing agency to collect the CCTV footage to unearth the truth, but none of the request was considered by them. Hence the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing this petition.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has lodged the complaint in the year 2018, till date no progress was made in the investigation and hence he prays to issue direction to the law enforcing agency to complete the investigation within a stipulated time, as fixed by this Court.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the investigation will be completed within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

In the light of the undertaking given by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the investigation will be completed within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, no further orders are necessary in this petition. However, it is needless to state that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, shall monitor the case and issue direction to the 2^nd respondent to complete the investigation within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above observation.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

¶26

The Commissioner of Police,

¶27

Vepery, Chennai-7.

¶28

Inspector of Police, Mylapore Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶29

The Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, Chennai.

¶30

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

¶31

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶32

Copy to:

¶33

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai.

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.23932 of 2018

¶35

PCH(CO) HS(03/08/2021)

¶36

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

K.Radha v. Commissioner of Police Egmore Ch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Radha v. Commissioner of Police Egmore Ch

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

M.Rathnavel, Aged 32 Years, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Murugesan, Aged 49 Years, Vs State Rep. by

C.M.Sabarinath, M/A.23 Years Vs the State Rep by

Rubhan Anthony Ratihnaraj Vs the State Represented by

K.Jayakumar Vs Natarajan

C.Balakrishnamurthy Vs C.Jothivenkateswaran