Disposed

Munusamy v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Dec 2023CRL RC/2033/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed criminal revision to set aside an order directing police investigation into a job racketing case. The revision was disposed of on the basis that investigation has commenced and the order granting leave for private complaint stood. A copy of the FIR was shared.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was disposed of without setting aside the impugned order; petitioner received a copy of the FIR.

Munusamy Vs The Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.2033 of 2023

¶2

t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.2033 of 2023

¶7

Munusamy ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C, prayed to set aside the order dated 18.10.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.5448 of 2023 filed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sakkarapani

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

Crl.R.C.No.2033 of 2023

¶18

dated 18.10.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5448 of 2023 by the learned Judicial

¶19

Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri.

¶20

This Court on 30.11.2023 passed the order as follows:

¶21

“The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits

¶22

that the complaint apparently appears to be a job racketing. The respondent police received current paper in C.No.G2/2152/016867/2023 dated 04.09.2023 and Deputy Commissioner of Police conducted enquiry. Since the petitioner approached the Judicial Magistrate Court, the enquiry has been kept pending. He seeks a week's time to find out the present status of the enquiry and revert.

¶23

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶24

the trial Court in its order dated 18.10.2023 confirmed the case of the petitioner and also referring to the bank statement and other documents came to the conclusion that

¶25

“ ,t;tHf;fpy; vjphpfs; Rkj;jg;gLk; Fw;w';fs; midj;jpw;Fk; g[fhh;jhuhplk; Mtz';fs; K:yk; Mjhu';fs; cs;sJ vd;gjhy; ,k;kDtpy; nghyPrhh; tprhhpj;J fz;Lgpof;f Toa r';fjpfs; vJt[k;

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

Crl.R.C.No.2033 of 2023

¶29

,y;iy vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ/ ,g;g[fhhpy; g[fhh;jhuh; vjphpfs; kPJ Rkj;jpa[s;s nkhro Fw;wr;rhl;oid g[fhh;jhuh; mth; jug;gpy; jFe;j rhl;rpfs; kw;Wk; jFe;j rhd;whtz';fis Kd;dpiyg;gLj;jp jdp egh; g[jhh; K:yk; tHf;fhlyhk; vd;gjhy; vjphpfs; kPJ khtl;l Fw;w gphpt[. fhty; Ma;thsh; eltof;if vLj;J Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if gjpt[ bra;a cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;f mtrpak; ,y;iy vd;W fUjp ,k;kDthdJ mDkjpf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; Kot[ bra;fpd;wJ ” and further granted leave for the petitioner to file a private complaint which may not be proper. Since it is a job racketing, the documents have to be verified. Further bank details and signatures of the accused persons have to be collected and it has to be sent to forensic lab. Further, the accused persons have also produced forged letter head and appointment orders in the name of Government Organisation. A detailed investigation would only reveal the complexity and involvement of all the other accused.”

¶30

In continuation and in conjunction with the earlier order of this

¶31

Court dated 30.11.2023, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted

¶32

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

¶33

3/6

¶34

Crl.R.C.No.2033 of 2023

¶35

that a case registered, on the complaint of the petitioner in Crime No.11 of 2023 for the offence under sections 120(b) and 420 IPC against (i) Bharathkumar, (ii) Soundhiram, (iii) Sakthivel, (iv) Radhakrishnan, (v) Velu and (vi) Venkatesh prabu. Now the investigation commenced and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation would be taken to its logical end without further delay. A copy of the FIR is handed over to the petitioner.

¶36

Recording the above, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶37

11.12.2023

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

4/6

¶42

Crl.R.C.No.2033 of 2023

¶43

¶44

1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dharmapuri District.

¶45

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶46

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

¶47

5/6

¶48

Crl.R.C.No.2033 of 2023

¶49

M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

¶50

¶51

Crl.R.C.No.2033 of 2023

¶52

11.12.2023

¶53

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

¶54

6/6

Munusamy v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munusamy v. The Inspector 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

R.Janaki Vs D.Kannan

G.Loganathan Vs the State Rep.by

Arockiyasamy @ Suresh Vs State Rep.by, the Inspector of Police

Vargish Vs State Rep.by

Geetha Vs Devika

Neelakandan Vs State Rep by, the Sub Inspector of Police