Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 CrPC praying for transfer of investigation from 4th to 5th respondent. Court found 4th respondent's conduct unsatisfactory due to belated FIR. Transfer ordered and IG directed to nominate SP to supervise.
Transferred investigation from 4th to 5th respondent; IG directed to nominate SP to supervise.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.136 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.01.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
CRL.O.P (MD) No.136 of 2024
T.Pushpam
...Petitioner
vs
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.136 of 2024
5.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Madurai.
(R1 has been suo motu impleaded by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2024)
...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to transfer the investigation on the file of 3rd respondent in Crime No.1618/2018 to the 4th respondent and complete the investigation within the period as fix by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Muthu Ganesa Pandian For Respondents : Mr.M.Veeranthiran Government Advocate (Crl.side)
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to transfer the investigation in Crime No.1618 of 2018 from the file of the fourth respondent to the file of the fifth respondent.
2.When the case came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) vehemently objects to the same stating that the complaint was given after one month. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), on instructions, would submit that the FIR was belated by one
2/6
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.136 of 2024
month. Therefore, they were unable to trace out the real culprits. They are likely to file RCS before the learned Judicial Magistrate.
3.In view of the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the conduct of the fourth respondent is found not satisfactory. Therefore, the case in Crime No.1618 of 2018 is withdrawn from the file of the fourth respondent and transferred the same to the file of the fifth respondent.
4.The Inspector General of Police, CBCID, Chennai, is suo motu impleaded as first respondent. The original respondents are rearranged, accordingly.
5.The first respondent/the Inspector General of Police, CBCID, Chennai, is directed to nominate a Senior Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who in his/her assessment is experienced to conduct fair and impartial investigation and also nominate an Officer in the cadre of Superintendent of Police to supervise the investigation. The
3/6
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.136 of 2024
investigation shall be completed and the final report shall also be filed
before the Court concerned as expeditiously as possible.
With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Internet:Yes./No 05.01.2024 Index:Yes/No mm
To
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.136 of 2024
5/6
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.136 of 2024
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mm
CRL.O.P (MD) No.136 of 2024
05.01.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the investigation in Crime No.1618 of 2018 should be transferred from the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent.
Whether the Inspector General of Police, CBCID, Chennai should be directed to nominate officers to conduct the investigation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.Pushpam
Inspector General of Police, CBCID, Chennai
Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Madurai District
Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime), Thallakulam
Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station
Inspector of Police, CBCID, Madurai
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
