Aravinth Ramalingam v. The Commisioner Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.No.630 of 2021 Aravinth Ramalingam
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch,
3. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Team-VII, Fake Passport Wing, Central Crime Branch, ... Respondents Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.directng the third respondent Inspector of Police, TeamVII, Fake Passport wing, Central Crime Branch, Chennai to grant permission to the petitioner/accused to appear through video conferencing Mode and also grant sufficient time for the purpose of physical appearance to comply the Notice dated 30.10.2020 issued under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. by the third respondent for interrogation.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Vijaya Babu For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The present petition has been filed for a direction to the third respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to appear through video conferencing and to grant the petitioner sufficient time to appear before the third respondent in order to cooperate for the investigation.
2. In the considered view of this Court, a prayer of this nature is not maintainable under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only contemplates three contingencies to entertain a petition namely, a. To make such orders necessary to give effect to any order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure;
b. to prevent abuse of process of any Court exercising its jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure; and c. to secure the ends of justice which must be read ejusdem generis along with a and b.
3. It is therefore evident that power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court in relation to the matter pending before a Court. It cannot be used for issuing directions to the executive and the same is beyond the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Useful reference can be made to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of the State of West Bengal Vs. Sujit Kumar Rana reported in 2004 (4) SCC 129.
4. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking for a direction to the investigation officer and such a petition can never be maintained under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Registry is directed not to number any petition of this nature under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the petitions of this nature shall be directed to be filed only as a Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
5. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rli To
1. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police,
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, 3.The Inspector of Police, Team-VII, Fake Passport Wing, Central Crime Branch, 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Copy To:
1.The Assistant Registrar Criminal Section High Court, Madras.
2.The Assistant Registrar Writ Section High Court, Madras +1cc to Mr.D.Vijaya Babu, Advocate, S.R.No.2953. Crl.O.P.No.630 of 2021 RGN(CO) NRA(17/02/2021)