Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

N.SUDAGAR versus THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


N.Sudagar v. The Inspector of Police - Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3062 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1342 (9 April 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 09/04/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3062 of 2007

and

M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2007

and

Crl.O.P.No.1969 of 2007

and

M.P.No.1 of 2007

1.N.Sudagar

2.A.Narayanasamy

3.N.Dhanam ... Petitioners in

Crl.O.P.No.3062 of 2007 Vs

The Inspector of Police,

Koodal Puthur Police Station,

Madurai. ... Respondent in

Crl.O.P.No.3062 of 2007 Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.3062 of 2007: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the final report in C.C.No.76 of 2007 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai pertaining to the case in Cr.No.14 of 2007 on the file of the respondent.

A.Narayanasamy ... Petitioner in

Crl.O.P.No.1969 of 2007 Vs

1.The Superintendent of Police,

Superintendent of Police,

Madurai.

2.The Superintendent of Police (CBCID),

Superintendent Office,

Narimedu,

Madurai.

3.The Inspector of Police,

Koodal Puthur Police Station,

Madurai. ... Respondents in

Crl.O.P.No.1969 of 2007 Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.1969 of 2007: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to withdraw the investigation in Cr.No.14 of 2007 on the file of the respondent No.3 and entrust the same to the respondent No.2 and direct him to appoint a competent officer to investigate the same and to file final report within the time frame.

For Petitioner : T.Lajapathi Roy

For Respondents: Mr.L.Murugan,

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) :COMMON ORDER



Crl.O.P.No.3062 of 2007 has been filed to quash the final report in C.C.No.76 of 2007 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai pertaining to the case in Cr.No.14 of 2007 on the file of the respondent.

2. Crl.O.P.No.1969 of 2007 has been filed to withdraw the investigation in Cr.No.14 of 2007 on the file of the respondent No.3 and entrust the same to the respondent No.2 and direct him to appoint a competent officer to investigate the same and to file final report within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. The facts giving rise to the filing of these petitions as stood exposited from the records and from the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner could be summarised thus:

It so happened that there was some heap of sand in front of the house of the petitioner on 11.01.2007. Thereupon, the police officials namely, R.4 the Sub Inspector of Police and R.5 the Head Constable, who were on rounds, took exception to it and called upon the petitioner herein to remove it immediately, for which the petitioner has given a reply to the effect that his daughter being a Civil Engineer could come and remove it. Being not satisfied with such a reply, R.4 and R.5 manhandled the petitioner and his son Sudhakar and thereby caused injuries to them. Over and above that, the police also went to the extent of registering a case in Cr.No.14 of 2007 as against both of them for the offences punishable under Sections 294(B), 353 and 506(ii) I.P.C and the police took them into custody and produced before the learned Magistrate concerned before whom they also complained about the atrocities perpetrated by the police. But, they wee remanded and subsequently released on bail. The petitioner's daughter Parimala in the mean while lodged a complaint with the second respondent on 15.01.2007 to register a case and investigate into the matter as against the police officials. But, it has not seen the light of the day. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was no response at all for that complaint and that alone necessitate the petitioner to file this petition.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 would submit that the police in an one-sided and biased manner investigated into the matter and laid the police report and that the police officials committed atrocities on the petitioners.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would deny and refute the allegations as against the police officials.

6. Be that as it may, without deciding on merits the allegations, the following direction is issued:

It is open for the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 to file necessary applications before the Magistrate concerned seeking the relief as found set out in this petition and let the Magistrate consider the same with open mind and pass suitable orders.

7. With the above direction, these petitions are closed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. rsb

To

1.The Inspector of Police,

Koodal Puthur Police Station,

Madurai.

2.The Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.