Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1953 (MAD)

Senthilmurugan v. Superintendent of Police

2014-07-04

G.CHOCKALINGAM

body2014
Judgment 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the third respondent herein, viz., the Inspector of Police, Traffic (North) Police Station, Puducherry, to register the complaint dated 30.03.2013 and file a final report within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) appearing for the respondents. This Court has also perused the records. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) submits that as per the direction given by this Court, an enquiry has been conducted on the complaint given by the petitioner. He has also filed a report to that effect and the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer is as follows:- "The allegations leveled by the petitioner against the police personnel are found to be false, baseless and only an afterthought, tutored by his brother, being an Advocate, who want to get insurance claim for his brother, i.e., the petitioner." 4. In view of the above findings given by the first respondent police, no direction can be given in this petition. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the report given by police, he is at liberty to take appropriate action before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law.