1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1872 of 2011 T.Manickavasagam ... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Vs. The Inspector of Police, Srivaikundam Police Station Tuticorin District, Crime No. 374 of 2010 ... Respondent PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the Inspector of Police, Srivaikundam Police Station, Tuticorin District, the respondent herein to complete the investigation in Crime No. 374 of 2010 and to file final report before the competent Judicial Magistrate within a time frame. For Petitioner : Mr. A.P.G. Ohm Chairma Prabhu For Respondent : Mr. L.Murugan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to direct the Inspector of Police, Srivaikundam Police Station, Tuticorin District, the respondent herein, to complete the investigation in Crime No. 374 of 2010 and to file final report before the competent Judicial Magistrate within a time frame. 2. Heard Mr. A.P.G. Ohm Chairma Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the investigation in Crime No. 374 of 2010 pending on the file of the respondent police on the complaint given by the petitioner as de-facto complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 429, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. He would further submit his argument that despite the registration was done on 27.12.2010, still the respondent police is not completing the investigation. He would further submit in his argument that the accused persons are very influential persons and they are attempting to hamper the investigation of the respondent and are trying to bring pressure to restore the matter or to drop the main accused in order to escape from the clutches of criminal prosecution. He would therefore, request the Court that suitable directions may be issued against the respondent for completing the investigation within a time frame and to file charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 4. The learned Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the investigation is promptly being carried on and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 investigation is likely to be completed wtihin a short period. However, the respondent is ready to file the charge sheet within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. Considering the submissions made on both sides, this Court could see that the learned Government Advocate had submitted that the respondent police would complete the investigation within a period of two months time. Recorded the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the investigation would be completed within a period of two months and the charge sheet could also be filed wtihin a time frame. 6. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent police to investigate the case as expeditiously as possible and to file the charge sheet within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the abovesaid observation and direction, this Petition is disposed of. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( LA ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR vsg To 1.The Inspector of Police Srivaikundam Police Station, Tuticorin District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai 1CC TO MR. G. ARAVINTHAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 8878: DM:2011::MARCH:08::: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1872 of 2011 15.02.2011 2P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/