Disposed

Siva v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC7 Jun 2024CRL OP/8883/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking direction for further investigation into Crime No.1118 of 2018 concerning the suspicious death of the petitioner's father, whose complaint had been closed as mistake of fact. The court disposed of the petition directing respondents to examine the pen drive produced and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to examine the pen drive submitted by petitioner's counsel and take appropriate action in accordance with law regarding Crime No.1118 of 2018.

Siva Vs the Commissioner of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.8883 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.8883 of 2024

¶7

Mr.Siva. ... Petitioner/defacto complainant

¶8

/versus/

¶9

1. The Commissioner of Police, Avadi Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Chennai.

¶10

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶11

3. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, T5, Thiruverkadu Police Station, Thiruverkadu, Chennai – 600 077. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to issue direction to the respondents to further investigate the case in Crime No.1118 of 2018.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

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

¶16

1/5

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.8883 of 2024

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to issue direction to the

¶20

respondents to further investigate the case in Crime No.1118 of 2018.

¶21

2. This Court has directed the Government Advocate (Crl.Side) to

¶22

file detailed action taken report in Crime No.421 of 2018 on the file of Kulithalai Police Station as well as in Crime No.1118 of 2018 on the file of Thiruverkadu Police Station since both the complaints relates to one Azhagesan, who is the father of the petitioner earlier lodged a complaint before the Kulithalai Police Station for alleged wrongful restrain, intimidation and causing hurt. Two months after the lodging of complaint, the said Azhagesan died in a suspicious manner and therefore, complaint in Crime No.1118 of 2018 came to be registered by Thiruverkadu Police Station. The records produced by the Learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) indicates that the complaint given by Azhagesan to the Kulithalai Police been investigated and final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Kulithalai. Whereas, the subsequent complaint given by this petitioner to the Thiruverkadu Police Station regarding suspicious death of Azhagesen been closed as mistake of fact.

¶23

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

¶24

2/5

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.8883 of 2024

¶26

3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the incident which took place on 02.09.2018 has direct relevance to the suspicious death of Azahagesan on 18.10.2018 and furthermore, the conversation between the deceased Azhagesan and his daughter been recoded by the daughter, a vital piece of evidence which would indicate that Azhagesan has met his death not naturally and therefore, the closure report as mistake of fact has to be reconsidered. In the course of hearing, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted the pen drive alleged to contain the conversation held between the deceased and his daughter soon before his death.

¶27

4. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent states that the said CD will be examined and if necessary, the complaint in Crime No.1118 of 2018 will be reopened for further investigation and necessary action will be taken.

¶28

5. In the light of the above fact, the present petition filed for further investigation in Crime No.1118 of 2018 is disposed of, directing the respondent herein to examine the pen drive given by the petitioner's counsel and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶29

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

¶30

3/5

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.8883 of 2024

¶32

6. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶33

disposed of.

¶34

07.06.2024

¶35

Index : Yes/No. Neutral Citation : Yes/No. bsm Copy to:- 1. The Commissioner of Police, Avadi Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Chennai. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Thiruvallur District,Thiruvallur. 3.The Inspector of Police, T5, Thiruverkadu Police Station, Thiruverkadu, Chennai – 600 077. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶36

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

¶37

4/5

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.8883 of 2024

¶39

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶40

bsm

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.8883 of 2024

¶42

07.06.2024

¶43

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

¶44

5/5

Siva v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siva v. the Commissioner 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

Kamal Kamesh Vs Navneeth Ahmed

M/S. Cool Navy Vs M/S. Jeans Brand Factory, v

S.Shankar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

C.Srinivasalu Vs the State Rep by Its

Lifecell International Private Limited Rep.by Its Vs State Represented by

Renu Vs the State Rep by Its