S. Senthil Kumar Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Office K. Pudur, Madurai District and Another

S. Senthil Kumar vs The Superintendent of Police, Office K. Pudur, Madurai District and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Jun 10, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1190608

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1190608
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: The Honourable Dr.(Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala
Decided On: Jun 10, 2016
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 8843 of 2016
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Senthil Kumar

Respondent

The Superintendent of Police, Office K. Pudur, Madurai District and Another

Excerpt

.....advocate (crl. side) for the respondents. 3. the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent police hand in glove with the accused threatened the petitioner to withdraw the complaint and that he is not taking any efforts to investigate the matter and to file a final report. hence, the petitioner has come up with the aforesaid prayer. 4. the learned government advocate (criminal side) would vehemently oppose the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, on instructions, he would submit that the second respondent has completed major part of the investigation and he requires only two months time to complete the further investigation and to file a final report in crime no.67 of 2016. 5. having regard to the facts that major part of the investigation is over, learned counsel seeks at least time frame to be fixed to file the final report / charge sheet before the concerned court. 6. the petitioner has raised only bald allegations against the second respondent. the petitioner has not produced any materials in order to substantiate the same. 7. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a direction is issued to the second respondent to complete the investigation and file a final report in crime no.67 of 2016 before the court concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. this criminal original petition is accordingly disposed of.

Full Judgment

(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the first respondent to appoint a competent Police Officer, other than the 2^nd respondent, to investigate the case in Crime No.67 of 2016 and to file a final report before the competenut Court within a stipulated time.)

1. It is an application seeking a direction to the first respondent to appoint a competent Police Officer, other than the 2^nd respondent, to investigate the case in Crime No.67 of 2016 and to file a final report before the competent Court within a stipulated time.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent Police hand in glove with the accused threatened the petitioner to withdraw the complaint and that he is not taking any efforts to investigate the matter and to file a final report. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the aforesaid prayer.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would vehemently oppose the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, on instructions, he would submit that the second respondent has completed major part of the investigation and he requires only two months time to complete the further investigation and to file a final report in Crime No.67 of 2016.

5. Having regard to the facts that major part of the investigation is over, learned counsel seeks at least time frame to be fixed to file the final report / charge sheet before the concerned Court.

6. The petitioner has raised only bald allegations against the second respondent. The petitioner has not produced any materials in order to substantiate the same.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a direction is issued to the second respondent to complete the investigation and file a final report in Crime No.67 of 2016 before the Court concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. This Criminal Original Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties S. Senthil Kumar vs The Superintendent of Police, Office K. P... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Dr.(Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala