Dismissed

Kumar @ Rafik Sultan Shaikh v. State Rep.by

Madras HC21 Sept 2023CRL OP/21623/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for records of an FIR and quash it, the Madras High Court held that the petitioner's contentions were purely factual and the matter required investigation by the police. The Court declined to interfere with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed; the respondent Police is directed to complete the investigation and file a final or closure report within three months.

Kumar @ Rafik Sultan Shaikh Vs State Rep.by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.21623 of 2023

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶3

Dated : 21.9.2023

¶4

Coram :

¶5

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Criminal Original Petition No.21623 of 2023 & Crl.M.P.No.14928 of 2023

¶7

Kumar (a) Rafik Sultan Shaikh ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Kodambakkam Police Station, Chennai. ...Respondent

¶9

PETITION under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records relating to the first information report in Crime No.166 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mageshkumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, GA (Crl.Side)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This petition has been filed to call for the records in

¶13

Crime No.166 of 2023 on the file of the The State rep.by the

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.21623 of 2023

¶17

Inspector of Police, Kodambakkam Police Station, Chennai. and quash

¶18

the same.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶20

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶21

3.The contentions put forward by the learned counsel

¶22

appearing on behalf of the petitioners are purely factual in nature and this Court cannot venture into conducting a mini investigation into the

¶23

matter and it therefore does not fall within the ambit of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Any finding on facts will also have a

¶24

bearing on the investigation conducted by the respondent Police.

¶25

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

¶26

not inclined to interfere with the investigation conducted by the respondent Police at this stage.

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.21623 of 2023

¶30

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and the respondent Police is directed to proceed further with the investigation in accordance with law and complete the investigation and file a final report or a closure report, as the case may be, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

21.9.2023

¶32

Index : Yes (or) No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes (or) No rka To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kodambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

¶33

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.21623 of 2023

¶37

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J

¶38

rka

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.21623 of 2023 & Crl.M.P.No.14928 of 2023

¶40

21.9.2023

¶41

4/4

¶42

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

Kumar @ Rafik Sultan Shaikh v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar @ Rafik Sultan Shaikh v. State Rep.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

The Chief Executive Officer Vs The Director General of Police

K.Elumalai Vs the State Rep by Its

Palanisami Vs The Superintendent of Police

C.Raja Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Suresh Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sundar Vs State Rep by