Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/19502/2015dismissed

A. Jesinthamari v. The Director And General Of

2015-10-13Honourable Ms. Justice R.Mala2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.10.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19502 of 2015 A.Jesinthamari : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Headquarters,Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 4.

2.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai - 2.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvadanai Sub-Division, Ramanathapuram District.

5.The Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to transfer the investigation from the 5th respondent to some other police station within the jurisdiction of 3rd respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthusamy For Respondents: Mr.P.Kannithevan, Government Advocate (Crl.side)

O R D E R

The petitioner has come forward with the present petition seeking for a direction to transfer the investigation registered in Crime No.125 of 2015 from the file of the 5th respondent to some other police station within the jurisdiction of 3rd respondent police.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. Mr.P.Muthusamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner on 31.08.2015, a case in Crime No.125 of 2015 has been registered on the file of the 5th respondent, for the the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 147 and 506(i) of IPC, for the alleged occurrence took place on 30.08.2015, which arose due to sharing of water from a common tab. It https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

is his further submission that initially, 5th respondent police has not included Section 4 of Women Harassment Act and subsequent to the direction of this Court, the respondent included the said offence. Continuing his argument, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 5th respondent police is not taking any steps to proceed with the investigation and therefore, the petitioner has come to this Court, for the relief stated supra.

4. Mr.P.Kannithevan, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondents would submit that the has has been registered only on 31.08.2015 and the investigation is going on in a proper direction and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and coupled with the fact that the case has been registered only on 31.08.2015, I do not find any reason for transferring the investigation, from the file of 5th respondent to some other police station. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(writs) /True copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director General of Police, Headquarters, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 4.

2.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai - 2.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvadanai Sub-Division, Ramanathapuram District.

5.The Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District 6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Sm:AMF:03.11.2015:2P/7C Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19502 of 2015 Dated:- 13.10.2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/