Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

P Mathiazhagan vs The State Rep By Its The Inspector Of Police Crime Ariyaloor Police Station 2 The Superintendent Of Police Ariyaloor District

Madras High Court|25 November, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.25629 of 2016 P.Mathiazhagan ..... Petitioner Vs.
1 The State Rep. by its The Inspector of Police Crime Ariyaloor Police Station
2 The Superintendent of Police Ariyaloor District, Ariyaloor ..... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to allow this Criminal O.P. and direct the transfer of investigation in the case in Cr.No.625 of 2016 from the file of the Ariyaloor Police Station to some other Officer or Agency for investigation and disposal in accordance with law.
For petitioner Mr.R.Srinivas For Respondents Mr. C. Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to allow this petition and direct transfer of investigation in Cr.No.625 of 2016 from the file of the Ariyaloor Police Station to some other Officer or Agency for investigation and disposal in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner-Mathiazhagan, presented a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, in Cr.MP.No.6548 of 2016 and on the directions of the Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur u/s.156 (3) Cr.P.C., the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.625 of 2016 on 07.11.2016, u/s.379, 380, 334 & 427 IPC against Pushpa, Mani, Rajendran and Viji. Not satisfied with the progress of investigation, Mathiazhagan is before this Court for transferring the investigation from the file of the Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station to any other agency.
3. Heard Mr.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police initially did not take up his complaint and only after he had approached the Magistrate, the FIR in this case has been registered.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused in this case are none other than the close relatives of Mathiazhagan, inasmuch as Pushpa is his sister-in-law and Mani is her nephew and that on account of some family dispute, Mathiazhagan has lodged the present complaint implicating them.
6. The aforesaid submission is strongly refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations in the FIR, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. However, the Deputy Superintendent of Police is directed to monitor the investigation in Cr.No.625 of 2016 and if it is found that the allegations therein are not true, it is needless to state that the case should be closed under due intimation to Mathiazhagan. The respondent police is directed to complete the investigation expeditiously.
Accordingly, this petition is closed.
25.11.2016 ELP/GMS To
1 The Inspector of Police Crime Ariyaloor Police Station
2 The Superintendent of Police Ariyaloor District, Ariyaloor.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104
P.N.PRAKASH,J,
ELP/GMS Crl.O.P. No.25629 of 2016 25.11.2016.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

P Mathiazhagan vs The State Rep By Its The Inspector Of Police Crime Ariyaloor Police Station 2 The Superintendent Of Police Ariyaloor District

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
25 November, 2017
Judges
  • P N Prakash