Dismissed

M.Ambika v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC28 Nov 2023WP/32893/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to transfer investigations in crime nos. 138, 197, and 220 from specific police officers to the CBCID. The court found that all three FIRs had been closed as mistakes of fact, rendering the petition devoid of merits. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as all relevant FIRs were closed as mistake of fact, rendering the transfer petition devoid of merits.

M.Ambika Vs The Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.32893 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.No.32893 of 2022

M.Ambika

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Vellore District

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore District

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Veepankuppam Police Station, Vellore District

¶13

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Vellore District ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER :

¶15

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

¶16

issue a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to transfer of the investigation in crime No.138 of 2022, 197/2022, 220/2022 from the hands of

¶17

second and third respondents to fourth respondent in pursuant to her representation dated 28.12.2022.

¶18

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

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

W.P.No.32893 of 2022

¶21

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition has been filed for direction to the first

¶25

respondent to transfer the investigation in Crime Nos.138, 197 & 220 of 2022 from the file of the second and third respondents to the file of the fourth respondent.

¶26

2. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for

¶27

respondents filed status report, which revealed that 3 FIR's have been enquired

¶28

and all the three FIR's have been closed as mistake of fact as per the following details:

¶29

S No	*Crime No. & Section*	*Petitioner/* *Complaina* nt	*Accused/* *Suspect*	*Investigation*	*Status*
1	138/2022 u/s 506(ii) IPC	Ambika	Babu & Selvakumar	Mistake of fact. RCs not served. Final Report yet to be sent to the concerned Court	Screening Committee not necessary
2	197/2022 u/s.147, 294(b), Sec 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Sec 3(1) (r	Ambika	Selvaraj Ganesan, Jayaprakash, Murugesan Babu and	Mistake of Fact. RCs not served. Final report yet to be sent to the	Screening Committee approved dated 28.10.2022

¶30

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

¶31

Page 2 of 4

¶32

W.P.No.32893 of 2022

¶33

S No	*Crime No. & Section*	*Petitioner/* *Complaina* nt	*Accused/* *Suspect*	*Investigation*	*Status*
	) 3(1)(s) 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989		Dasaradhan	concerned court
3	220/2022 u/s.294(b), 506(ii) and Sec 3(1) (r ) 3(1) (s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989	Ambika	Madhukumar, Kavitha Madhukumar, Gajendran and Baskar	Mistake of Fact. Investigation completed. RCs not served	Screening Committee approval pending. Final report yet to be sent to the concerned Court

¶34

Therefore, no FIR is pending on the file of the second and third

¶35

respondents. Hence, change of investigation does not arise. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

28.11.2023

¶37

Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order lok

¶38

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶39

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

Page 3 of 4

W.P.No.32893 of 2022

lok

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Vellore District

¶45

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore District 3.The Inspector of Police, Veepankuppam Police Station, Vellore District

¶46

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Vellore District 5.The Government Advocate High Court of Madras

¶47

W.P.No.32893 of 2022

¶48

28.11.2023

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 4

M.Ambika v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ambika 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

Raja Vs State Rep by

T.R.Nandakumar Vs a.Chidambaram

S.Selvaraj Vs State Rep by

S.Thangadurai, Vs The Secretary to Government

S.Menaka Vs State by

Sabrina, Aged 42 Years Vs M/S.Atlantic Leather Exports