Disposed

Mr.N.Jaganathan v. State by

Madras HC6 Jul 2021CRL OP/8044/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the grounds raised were factual and required evidence appreciation, precluding quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court instead directed the police to expedite and complete the investigation within six months, disposing of the petition without interference.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent Police to complete the investigation in C.r.No.563 of 2017 within six months from receipt of the order.

Mr.N.Jaganathan Vs State by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.8044 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.4135 of 2018

¶6

1.Mr.N.Jaganathan

¶7

2.Mr.N.Anandan

¶8

... Petitioners/Accused 1&2

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Rajamangalam Police Station, Chennai. (Cr.No.563/2017)

¶11

2.Mr.Mageshwaran

¶12

... Respondents/complainant

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to C.C.No.563/2017 dated 20.04.2017 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Jaikumar

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking to call for the records and to quash the proceedings in C.r.No.563/2017, on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶17

The grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioners are all factual in nature and it requires appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot decide the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is left open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds before the Investigating Officer and the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the 1^st respondent Police.

¶18

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

¶19

3.It is now represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that without going into the merits of the case, it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the law enforcing agency to expedite the investigation and complete the same as early as possible.

¶20

4.In view of the above, this Court directs the 1^st respondent Police, to expedite the Investigating in C.r.No.563 of 2017 and complete the same, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

5.With the above directions, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

¶28

The Inspector of Police, Rajamangalam Police Station, Chennai.

¶29

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.8044 of 2018

¶31

PL(CO) CT/28/07/2021

¶32

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

Mr.N.Jaganathan v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.N.Jaganathan v. State by

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

Jeyachandran Vs State Rep by

K.Velmurugan Vs T.Allimuthu

Govindasamy Vs Iop Krishnapuram

Preethi.M.S. Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Akilan Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Akilan Vs the Inspector of Police