← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/11799/2021disposed of

K.Chinnasamy v. The Inspector Of Police

2021-08-19Honourable Mr Justice G.Ilangovan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.08.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.11799 and 11825 of 2021 In Crl.O.P(MD)No.11799 of 2021 K.Chinnasamy ... Petitioner/Defacto complainant Vs.

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Aravakurichi Police Station, Karur District In Crime No.377 of 2009 ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondent to file a final report in Crime No.377 of 2009 on the file of the respondent within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

In Crl.O.P(MD)No.11825 of 2021:

K.Chinnasamy ... Petitioner/Defacto complainant Vs.

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Aravakurichi Police Station, Karur District In Crime No.446 of 2020 ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondent to file a final report in Crime No.446 of 2020 on the file of the respondent within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

In both petitions:

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor C O M M O N

O R D E R

These petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to file a final report in Crime Nos.377 of 2009 and 446 of 2020 on the file of the respondent within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

1/3

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defacto complainant in both cases. The case in Crime No.377 of 2009 has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC and the case in Crime No.446 of 2020 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of continuous theft of jewelry and investigation has already been undertaken in a proper manner, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police is making threat to the petitioner by saying that why he should approach the court for remedy.

3. Since a specific allegation has been brought to the notice of this Court against the Sub Inspector of Police, the learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor is directed to intimate the same to the Superintendent of Police to take action against the Sub Inspector departmentally.

4. Such allegation cannot be entertained by this Court and this Court could not exercise discretionary power over the police officials.

5. However, there shall be a direction to the respondent to complete the investigation and file a final report in both matters within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above observation and direction, these petitions are disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) CM Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To, 1.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District.

2/3

2.The Inspector of Police, Aravakurichi Police Station, Karur District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.11799 and 11825 of 2021 19.08.2021 RK (31.08.2021) 3P 4C 3/3