Dismissed

Wilson Thangamuthu v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC2 Feb 2021CRL OP(MD)/17042/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of investigation for non-prosecution. The petitioner failed to appear on two hearing dates, and the investigation had already been completed by the respondent police.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court.

Wilson Thangamuthu Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17042 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.02.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17042 of 2017

¶4

Wilson Thangamuthu ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶7

2.The Inspector of Police, Seeidunganallur Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.185 of 2017)

¶8

3.Innoshkumar, Sub – Inspector of Police, Seidunganallur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to transfer the investigation in Cr.No.185 of 2017 dated 11.09.2017 pending on the file of the 2^nd respondent to any other competent authorities and to complete the investigation within the stipulated period.

¶11

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.M.Ganesan R1&R2 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to transfer the investigation in Cr.No.185 of 2017 dated 11.09.2017 pending on the file of the 2^nd respondent to any other competent authorities.

¶14

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 08.01.2021, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 29.01.2021, and on that day also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶15

3.As per the information furnished by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that investigation has been completed by the first respondent and charge sheet has been filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate and also the matter was posted under the caption 'for dismissal' on 02.02.2021.

¶16

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

¶17

1/2

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17042 of 2017

¶19

4.Even today ((i.e on 02.02.2021), there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶20

Assistant Registrar (CSIII)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 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.

¶23

¶24

1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶25

2.The Inspector of Police, Seeidunganallur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17042 of 2017

¶28

02.02.2021

¶29

NA(CO) KB(15.02.2021) 2P 4C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

Wilson Thangamuthu v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wilson Thangamuthu v. the Superintendent 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

M.Gunasekaran Vs The Inspector of Police

Rajkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Meenakshi Vs the Inspector of Police

Chandrasekaran Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Kannan Vs The Inspector of Police

P. Mohanram, Vs the Sub Collector Cum