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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 41878

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M.Nirmal Kumar, J
Prasanth – Appellant
Versus
State of TamilNadu Rep by – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Table of Content
1. opposed the petitioners' contentions (Para 2)
2. both the cases have been posted (Para 3)
3. this criminal original petition is disposed (Para 4)

ORDER

The petitioners, who are accused facing trial in C.C.No.61 of 2019, have filed this Petition on the ground that the uncontroverted statements of the witnesses and materials filed and there is no ground to proceed against them. Further, the Investigating Officer failed to follow Police Standing Order 566(2), which mandates that in case of a counter-case, the Investigating Officer must first determine the aggressor. On identifying the aggressor, the Investigating Officer is required to seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor before proceeding further. There is no material in this case, whether the Investigating Officer had followed the guidelines enumerated under Clause 566(2) of the Police Standing Orders. Further, it is submitted that the counter case in C.C.No.35 of 2018 is also posted along with the petitioners' case and both cases are proceeding simultaneously, which is in violation of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in T.Balaji and another vs. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, New Washermenpet P

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