SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Mad) 8

A.K.RAJAN
Lourdumary – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Dr. G. Krishnamurthy, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, Government Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. These petitions, though the prayers are worded differently, in effect it is to investigate the case and to register the complaint.

2. These petitions are filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. As per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. S.N.Basak , AIR 1963 SC 447 and Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad and another , AIR 1972 SC 484, it has been held that the statutory right of Police to carry on investigation into cognizable offence cannot be interfered with under Sections 401 and 482 before launching prosecution. Interference with such investigation would be impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise the power in accordance with Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held so in these two cases following its earlier decision in R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab , AIR 1960 SC 866, held that:

“The High Court does not interfere with such investigation because it would then, be impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise powers in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. The High Court was correct in dismissing the application filed under Section 561(A) of the Cr.P.C.”

In State v. Bajanlal, AIR 1





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top