HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M.Nirmal Kumar, J
Prasanth – Appellant
Versus
State of TamilNadu Rep by – Respondent
| 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.