Allowed

Ayothiraman v. The Superintendent of police

Madras HC14 Sept 2022CRL OP(MD)/10565/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the Superintendent of Police to complete the investigation and file a final report within two months despite the presence of an accused abroad, rejecting the argument that absence precludes further inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent to complete investigation and file final report within 2 months; 2nd accused to be marked as absconding if not secured.

Ayothiraman Vs The Superintendent of police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10565 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.10565 of 2019

Ayothiraman

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Superintendent of Police,

¶11

Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶12

2.The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(amended as per order of this Court dated 10.03.2022 in Crl.M.P. (MD)No.7115 of 2019 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10565 of 2019)

¶15

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 1^st respondent to transfer the investigation regard to the Crime No.110 of 2015, dated 08.03.2015 on the file of the 2^nd respondent police to some other competent investigation agency.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Muthivai Ilayaraja For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶17

1/6

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10565 of 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition has been filed seeking for transfer of investigation

¶21

of Crime No.110 of 2015, pending on the file of the 2^nd respondent police.

¶22

2.The main ground on which this transfer petition has been filed is that there has been absolutely no progress in the investigation inspite of the directions issued by this Court in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.445 of 2016, wherein this Court directed the final report to be filed, within a period of four months through order dated 11.01.2016.

¶23

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that there were two accused persons in this case. The 1^st accused while he was alive was making attempts to settle the dispute. In fact, for the adjacent plot, such a settlement was mooted and inspite of the demise of the 1^st accused, settlement was made by his grandson. The same was also recorded by this Court, while disposing CRL.O.P.(MD)No.19604 of 2016. Insofar as this case is concerned,

¶24

2/6

¶25

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10565 of 2019

¶26

since the 1^st accused has died and the 2^nd accused is staying abroad, the police is not in a position to proceed further with the investigation. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents therefore submitted that there was no intentional delay in completion of the investigation and there is no ground for transfer of investigation.

¶27

4.In the considered view of this Court, the fact that the 2^nd accused is abroad, cannot be a ground for not completing the investigation and filing a final report by showing the 2^nd accused as an absconding accused. The entire case is borne out by records and the Investigation Officer must merely record the statement of the witnesses and collect the relevant documents and inspect and file a sketch of the available property in order to compare as to whether it matches with the one stated in the document. The absence of the 2^nd accused cannot stop the Investigation Officer from proceeding further with the investigation and filing final report. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for the 2^nd respondent not to have progressed with the investigation.

¶28

3/6

¶29

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10565 of 2019

¶30

5.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to direct the 1^st respondent, namely, Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District to monitor the investigation made by the 2^nd respondent and investigation shall be completed and final report shall be filed, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the 2^nd respondent is not able to secure the 2^nd accused, he can show the 2^nd accused as absconding accused in the final report.

¶31

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

¶32

directions.

¶33

14.09.2022

¶34

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

¶35

Myr

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

4/6

¶39

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10565 of 2019

¶40

2.The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶41

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

¶42

5/6

¶43

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10565 of 2019

¶44

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶45

Myr

¶46

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.10565 of 2019

¶47

14.09.2022

¶48

6/6

Ayothiraman v. The Superintendent of police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayothiraman 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

Ayyapattu @ Srinivasan, Vs the Deputy Superintendent

Guru Eswari, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Noor Mohammed Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.S.Shiniy Vs the Director General of

Thangadurai, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

K.Rathinasamy Vs the Inspector of Police