S.Renukadevi v. State Rep By Superintendent

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.11.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL.OP.(MD).No.15711 of 2017 S.Renukadevi . . Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Vs.

1. State represented by, The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Inspector of Police, Chatrapatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.83 of 2012) . . Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondents to expedite the investigation in Crime No.83 of 2012 on the file of the second respondent police and to file final report as directed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchathram, in R.C.S.No.147 of 2014 in Crime No.83 of 2012, dated 14.10.2016 within a time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mathiyalagan For Respondents : Mr.A.Ramar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

ORDER

This Criminal Original petition is filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to expedite the investigation in Crime No.83 of 2012 on the file of the second respondent police and to file final report as directed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchathram, in R.C.S.No.147 of 2014 in Crime No.83 of 2012, dated 14.10.2016 within a time stipulated by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is the defacto complainant and she lodged a complaint which was originally registered in Crime No.83 of 2012 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 427, 294(b) and 506 (ii) of I.P.C.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. After registration of the case, the second respondent closed the complaint as "Mistake of Fact" and R.C.Notice was also issued to the petitioner in the month of March, 2014. On receipt of the said R.C.Notice, it appears that the petitioner filed a Protest petition and the said Protest petition was allowed and the investigation Officer was directed to submit a report/final report, after completing enquiry, as the earlier Closure Report was found not satisfactory. Despite the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchathram, to file final report by an order dated 14.10.2016, it is stated that no final report is filed.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to issue the following direction:- " The second respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.83 of 2012 and to file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "

6. The Criminal Original petition is allowed, accordingly. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Inspector of Police, Chatrapatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to M/S.R.Mathiyalagan, Advocate SR.No. 87932 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15711 of 2017 17.11.2017 pmu JM/SKN RSK/SAR 4/05.12.2017/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/