Dismissed

Bhackiyaa v. The Superintendent of police

Madras HC19 Apr 2021WP/8839/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought transfer of a death investigation to a higher police authority alleging foul play. The Court held that Section 174 Cr.P.C. investigations do not allow police to entertain representations. The Court refused to transfer the investigation but directed a senior officer to monitor the probe.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for transfer of investigation dismissed; direction issued to D.S.P. to monitor investigation.

Bhackiyaa Vs The Superintendent of police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 19.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

W.P.No.8839 of 2021

¶6

Bhackiyaa .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police Cuddalore District Cuddalore 2.The Special Sub Inspector of Police Sirupakkam Police Station Cuddalore District 3.The Additional Director General of Police CB CID, Guindy Chennai-32 .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to transfer the investigation in Crime No.20 of 2021 on the file of the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Sirupakkam Police Station, the 2^nd respondent herein to the Additional Director General of Police, CB CID, Guindy, Chennai-32, the third respondent herein, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 27.01.2021 on the file of the 1^st respondent herein.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶10

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that there is a foul play in the death of her husband Venkatesan and therefore, she gave a representation dated 27.01.2021 to the police, which has not

¶12

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

¶13

been considered by them and therefore, she has filed the present writ petition with the above prayer.

¶14

On instructions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the body of the petitioner's husband Venkatesan was found in the well of the lands belonging to the father of Venkatesan on 21.01.2021, in connection with that, on the complaint of one Mayavel, the father of the deceased Venkatesan, a case in Sirupakkam P.S.Crime No.20 of 2021 has been registered on 21.01.2021 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and investigation is in progress.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police has failed to send the F.I.R. to the jurisdictional Court and instead, sent the F.I.R. to the Tahsildar and therefore, there is foul play in the investigation.

¶16

We are unable to countenance the aforesaid submission, inasmuch as, the police have registered this case only under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and not for any cognizable offence in the IPC. An F.I.R. registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. which relates to suspicious death, should have to be sent to the jurisdictional Tahsildar and if during the course of investigation, it comes to light that a cognizable offence has been committed, the police would alter the F.I.R. and send the papers to the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶17

As regards the representation dated 27.01.2021 that was given by the petitioner, we are afraid that a direction to the police for considering the representation, cannot be granted, because, investigation of a case is governed by Chapter-XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no scope for the police to entertain representations and pass orders thereon.

¶18

In such view of the matter, this is not a fit case to transfer the investigation as prayed for by the petitioner. However, we direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tittagudi to monitor the investigation that is being conducted by the Inspector of Police in Sirupakkam P.S.Crime No.20 of 2021.

¶19

With the above direction, this writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶21

//True copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

gya

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Tittagudi 2.The Superintendent of Police Cuddalore District Cuddalore 3.The Special Sub Inspector of Police Sirupakkam Police Station Cuddalore District 4.The Additional Director General of Police CB CID, Guindy, Chennai-32 5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras W.P.No.8839 of 2021 SMI(CO) GMY(09/07/2021)

¶27

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

Bhackiyaa v. The Superintendent of police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhackiyaa 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

E.Subha Vs State Rep.by

V.Kandasamy Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mathiyazhagan Vs State Rep.by

Mahalakshmi Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Karthick Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Suresh Kumar Vs State Rep by