IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.17854 of 2007 Selvam ..Petitioner Versus State by Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. ..Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the respondent police to transfer all records pertinent to Crime No.283 of 2007 pending on the file of the respondent police to any other investigating agency. For Petitioner : M/s.R. Nalliyappan For Respondent : Mr. R.Muniappa raj Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to transfer all records pertinent to Crime No.283 of 2007 pending on the file of the respondent police to any other investigating agency, for further action. 2. The ingredients of the FIR disclosed that the petitioner/Defacto complainant lodged a complainant with the respondent police on 02.06.2007 on an alleged offence under sections 379, 506(i) of Indian Penal Code. The said case has been registered in Crime No.283 of 2007 against five accused persons namely 1.Prakash 2. Chinnakannu and 3 other unknown persons, stating that the lorry, bearing registration No. TN 31-L-8382 has been stolen by the accused persons, after threatening and assaulting the driver of the Defacto complainant. Now, the said Lorry is in the possession of the accused persons. 3. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the said lorry has been restored to the owner of the vehicle. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. But the petitioner contends that the respondent/police registered a case against the said accused persons and seized the above said lorry from them and taken the lorry in to custody. However, the respondent police have not taken any action on the complaint of the petitioner. The Respondent police neither enquired the complainant nor arrested the accused persons. So the respondent's action is prejudicial to the petitioner. Further, the respondent/police seized the vehicle and kept the same in their custody in a open place and refused to return the vehicle to the respondent 5. Thereafter, the respondent police insisted the petitioner to withdraw the complaint against the accused persons and take the lorry from their custody. As alleged by the petitioner, this kind of irregularities of the respondent/police is not fair. The learned counsel for the State argued that the respondent/police promptly registered a case and seized the vehicle. The respondent police has done his duty properly. There has been no insufficiency of service or negligence on the part of the respondent police. 6. Considering the ingredients of the FIR contents of the petition, and arguments of the learned counsel for their respective parties, the Court is of the view that the above Criminal Original Petition No.17854 of 2007 does not carry any merits and has got to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar skn/mra To 1. The Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No.17854 of 2007 PA (CO) GSK 19.08.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/