Dismissed

V.Gunasekaran v. State by the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC20 Oct 2022CRL OP/25427/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought transfer of a closed investigation for reinvestigation. The court held that since the charge sheet was closed, the petition was infructuous. The petitioner was directed to exhaust remedies under Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C. by following specific High Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as infructuous; no reinvestigation directed.

V.Gunasekaran Vs State by the Superintendent of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.25427 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.25427 of 2022

V.Gunasekaran

... Petitioner

versus

State by

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

¶12

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal.

¶13

3.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Namakkal, Namakkal District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the first respondent to transfer the investigation in C.S.R.No.1 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal, the second respondent herein to the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Namakkal, Namakkal District the third respondent herein for reinvestigation.

¶15

1/5

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.25427 of 2022

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for a

¶21

direction to the first respondent to transfer the investigation in C.S.R.No.1 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent to the file of the third respondent, for reinvestigation.

¶22

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on

¶23

the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21178 of 2021, an order has been passed by this Court by stating that “if any white-collar offence of forgery is found on the complaint given by the petitioner, the same should be forwarded to the District Crime Branch, Namakkal and the enquiry should be continued there.” Another petition was filed by the petitioner in Contempt Petition No.904 of 2022 by alleging that the above order of the Court was not complied. In the said order, the following observation has been made:-

¶24

“2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that as directed by this Court, the respondent forwarded the petitioner's complaint to the District Crime Branch,

¶25

2/5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.25427 of 2022

¶28

Namakkal and the same was enquired in C.S.R.No.56 of 2022 and closed on 15.06.2022.

¶29

Considering the said submission, no contempt is made out as against the respondent and this Contempt Petition is dismissed.”

¶30

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that only basing on the direction given by this Court, an enquiry has been conducted on the complaint given by the petitioner and the same was closed on 05.10.2022. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the closure report pertains to a petition in C.S.R.No.1 of 2022. But in the order of this Court dated 22.07.2022 in Cont.P.No.904 of 2022, the reference is made out in C.S.R.No.56 of 2022.

¶31

4. Now, the prayer made in this petition is with regard to C.S.R.No.1 of 2022. The closure report also pertains to C.S.R.No.1 of 2022.

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved due to the report of the second respondent police in closing the CSR. It is up to him to exhaust the remedy available to him under Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C. by following the guidelines laid down by this Court in G.Prabhakaran vs. The Superintendent of

¶33

Police, Thanjavur reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl 489 .

¶34

3/5

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.25427 of 2022

¶37

5. Since the CSR is closed nothing survives for further

¶38

consideration. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as

¶39

infructuous.

¶40

20.10.2022 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes

sri

State by

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

¶45

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal.

¶46

3.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Namakkal, Namakkal District.

¶47

4.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶48

4/5

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.25427 of 2022

¶51

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶52

sri

¶53

Crl.O.P.No.25427 of 2022

¶54

20.10.2022

¶55

5/5

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V.Gunasekaran v. State by the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Gunasekaran v. State by 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramachandran Vs the State by

R.Siva Vs the Inspector of Police

V.K.Jaychandran Vs the State Rep by

J.Joackin Vs He Commissioner of Police

Rajiallah Vs the Superintendent of Police

Thileepan Gunasekaran Vs the State Rep by