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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 3874

N.ANAND VENKATESH
K. SUKUMARI – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G. Marimuthu, Adv., S. Bharathi, Adv.

JUDGMENT

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

This petition has been filed for reopening the investigation in Crime No. 61 of 2012 and transfer the same to the filed of the CBCID.

2. The petitioner's husband was a history sheeter and was involved in several offences. He went missing from 18.01.2012 onwards and thereafter he was not traceable and therefore, a complaint was registered in Crime No.61 of 2012 under “man-missing” case.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent did not take steps to investigate the case and a final report came to be filed on 30.07.2014 before the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi on the ground that the case is closed as “undetected”. The learned Counsel would submit that the respondent Police cannot deal with a “man-missing” case in such a manner. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that the closure report is non est in the eye of law. The matter has to be re-investigated.

4. This Court had an occasion to deal with a case where the Police closed the man-missing case and filed a report as “undetected”. Taking note of this procedure, this Court by an order dated 12.09.2014 made in HCP No.1454 of 2014, after considering the matter in













































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