Partly allowed

P.Ravi v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Madras HC28 Jul 2023CRL OP/4532/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition requesting quashing of investigation records. Holding the contentions as purely factual beyond its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court declined to interfere and directed the police to complete the investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Investigation directed to be completed within three months and containment report filed.

P.Ravi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1 of 4

¶2

[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.4532 of 2022

¶7

and Crl.M.P No.2329 of 2022

¶8

1.P.Ravi

¶9

2.R.Jayanthi 3.T.C.Easwaramoorthy

¶10

4.E.Bhuvaneswari

¶11

5.M.Murukaiyan

¶12

6.M.Alamelu

¶13

7.K.Prakash

¶14

8.S.Jayakumar

¶15

9.J.Kalaiselvi

10.S.Kandasamy

11.C.Kumar

12.V.Mahendran

13.Magesh @ N.Mageswaran Petitioners

¶20

vs.

¶21

1.State Rep. by: The Inspector of Police, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Economic Offence Wing – II, Salem, Salem District.

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

2.K.Jayasankar Respondents

¶24

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.10 of 2013 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing – II, Salem, Salem District, the 1^st respondent herein and quash the same.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Esakkiappan For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (crl. Side) for R1

¶26

Mr.B.Kumarasamy for R2

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.10 of 2013 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing

¶29

– II, Salem, Salem District, the 1^st respondent herein and quash the same.

¶30

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

¶31

3.The contentions put forward by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶32

the petitioners are purely factual in nature and this Court cannot venture into https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis conducting a mini investigation into the matter and it therefore does not fall within

¶33

3 of 4

¶34

the ambit of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Any finding on facts will

¶35

also have a bearing on the investigation conducted by the respondent Police.

¶36

4.In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation conducted by the respondent Police at this stage.

¶37

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.

¶38

28.07.2023

¶39

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order ssr

¶40

¶41

1.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing – II, Salem, Salem District.

¶42

2.The Public Prosecutor, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis High Court of Madras, Madras.

¶43

4 of 4

¶44

N. ANAND VENKATESH,. J.

¶45

ssr

¶46

Crl.O.P No.4532 of 2022 and Crl.M.P No.2329 of 2022

¶47

28.07.2023

¶48

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

P.Ravi v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ravi v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Baskar Vs M/S.Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

Feroz Vs State Rep by

Saravanan Vs the Inspector of Police

T.Narayanasami Vs M.R.Palanisami

Arumuga Pandi Vs State by

R.Pandian Vs State Rep by Its