Stephen Sudhakar v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Sixteenth day of March Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13865 of 2021 STEPHEN SUDHAKAR [ PETITIONER/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ] THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANIMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to direct the respondent to investigate the case in Crime No.128/2018 on the file of respondent police and file a final report within a stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.S.PARTHASARATHY, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.V.MEGHANATHAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:- The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking direction to the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry.
2.When the matter was listed on 17.02.2022, it was reported by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent that, based on the complaint given by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.128 of 2018 was registered for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and since the respondent Police was unable to find out the accused, the case has been closed as "undetected" and the final report has also been filed before the concerned Court on 25.08.2018 itself. 3.This Court perused the complaint and finding that, as per the complaint, some unknown accused had broken up the back door of the house of the petitioner and by threatening the wife of the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
with knife, had robbed 16.75 sovereigns of gold jewels and had also taken cash of Rs.50,000/- from the house had enquired the respondent why the case was not registered for the offence under Section 397 IPC. 4.This Court also expressed dis-satisfaction in the manner in which the investigation was done. It was reported by the prosecution that the Investigating Officer who was the then SubInspector of Police had retired from service. Thereby, this Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Manimangalam Police Station, to appear before this Court. Today, it is reported by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the case has been reopened and further the investigation has been done and the case has been altered into one for the offences under Sections 458 and 392 r/w 397 IPC .
5.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Manimangalam Range is directed to continue with further investigation in the case and file a final report within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. List the matter on 15.07.2022 under the caption "for reporting compliance".
-sd/- 16/03/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANIMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MANIMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.S.PARTHASARATHY Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.13865/2021 Date :16/03/2022 TA-22/03/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/