1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14586 of 2011 S.Sakthivel ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Superintendent of Police Pudukkottai District Pudukkottai 2. State, rep. by Inspector of Police Town Police Station Pudukkottai ... Respondents Crime No.336 of 2011 PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent police, Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Pudukkottai, to expedite the investigation in Crime No. 336 of 2011 dated 18.06.2011 and to file the final report with appropriate provision of law. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent police, Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Pudukkottai, to expedite the investigation in Crime No. 336 of 2011, dated 18.06.2011 and to file the final report with appropriate provision of law. 2. Heard Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner has preferred a complaint to the second respondent on 10.06.2011. It is averred in the complaint that on 05.04.2010, the proposed accused persons have approached the petitioner and entered into a rental agreement regarding the lorry and they took the lorry to Chennai. But, they have not paid the rental agreement. Later, the petitioner came to understand that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 proposed accused persons have created a forged R.C.Book and changed the Lorry number and the same has also been pledged in a private bank. 4. He would further submit in his argument that immediately the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the Thiru.Vi.Ka. Nagar Police Station, Chennai and the said complaint was enquired into and it was closed as no jurisdiction to enquire the complaint because the said occurrence happened within the jurisdiction of the second respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a complaint to the second respondent, and it was registered, but no action was taken. Therefore, he would request the Court that a direction may be issued to the second respondent police to complete the investigation and to file a final report in Crime No. 336 of 2011 on the file of the second respondent. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit in his argument that on the complaint given by the petitioner, a case has been registered in Crime No. 336 of 2011 and the investigation will be expeditiously done and the final report will be filed within a period of four months before the appropriate Court. 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court is inclined to record the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and to direct the second respondent to investigate the case in Crime No. 336 of 2011 as expeditiously as possible and to file a final report, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the abovesaid direction, this Petition is disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Superintendent of Police Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 2. The Inspector of Police Town Police Station, Pudukkottai. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14586 of 2011 14.11.2011 vsg NSV/28.11.11/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/