P. Veerachamy Vs. State Represented by, The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai and Others

P. Veerachamy vs State Represented by, The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Apr 06, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1191617

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/1191617
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: P.N. Prakash
Decided On: Apr 06, 2016
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 5587 of 2016
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P. Veerachamy

Respondent

State Represented by, The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai and Others

Excerpt

.....and completed the investigation and also filed a final report, which was taken on file in s.c.no.78 of 2014 on the file of special court of pcr cases, pudukkottai. it is also seen that the case is pending from the year 2014 and now, the petitioner has come up with this petition seeking for further investigation of the case, making certain allegations against the investigating officer, on the ground that the investigating officer has not included some of the persons whom the petitioner had cited as witnesses in his own affidavit. 4. in the considered opinion of this court, that cannot be a good reason for ordering further investigation in the case, as the final report is pending before the trial court since 2014. 5. learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order dated 29.04.2014 passed by this court in crl.o.p.(md) no.7736 of 2014 in support of his submission. however, on a close perusal of the order, it is seen that this court has not decided any ratio decidenti for this court to follow nor is that stare decisis. during trial if additional materials surface, the trial court is empowered under section 319 cr.p.c. to include other persons as accused and under section 311 cr.p.c., the trial court has the power to examine any person whose evidence is just and necessary in the opinion of the trial court. with the above observation, this criminal original petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2^nd respondent to further investigate the case in S.C.No.78 of 2014 pending before the Special Court of P.C.R.cases, Pudukkottai in Crime No.176 of 2013 on the file of the 3^rd respondent Police and file additional final report before the concerned court.)

1. This petition has been filedto direct the 2^nd respondent to further investigate the case in S.C.No.78 of 2014 pending before the Special Court of P.C.R.cases, Pudukkottai in Crime No.176 of 2013 on the file of the 3^rd respondent Police and file additional final report before the concerned court.

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

3. It is seen that for the incident that took place on 29.09.2013, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.176 of 2013 and completed the investigation and also filed a final report, which was taken on file in S.C.No.78 of 2014 on the file of Special Court of PCR Cases, Pudukkottai. It is also seen that the case is pending from the year 2014 and now, the petitioner has come up with this petition seeking for further investigation of the case, making certain allegations against the Investigating Officer, on the ground that the Investigating Officer has not included some of the persons whom the petitioner had cited as witnesses in his own affidavit.

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, that cannot be a good reason for ordering further investigation in the case, as the final report is pending before the Trial Court since 2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order dated 29.04.2014 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7736 of 2014 in support of his submission. However, on a close perusal of the order, it is seen that this Court has not decided any ratio decidenti for this Court to follow nor is that stare decisis. During trial if additional materials surface, the Trial Court is empowered under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to include other persons as accused and under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court has the power to examine any person whose evidence is just and necessary in the opinion of the Trial Court.

With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties P. Veerachamy vs State Represented by, The Superintendent of ... Same Subject Education Same Judge P.N. Prakash