M. SUBRAMANIAM Vs. S. JANAKI
LAWS(SC)-2020-3-78
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 20,2020

M. SUBRAMANIAM Appellant
VERSUS
S. Janaki Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUDHIR BHASKARRAO TAMBE V. HEMANT YASHWANT DHAGE [REFERRED TO]
SAKIRI VASU VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RAMFAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-10-68] [REFERRED TO]
BALRAM RATHORE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
ROYDEN HAROLD BUTHELLO VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
S. KHANNA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
BIRFAL RAM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-6-87] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BALAGOPAL VS. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-189] [REFERRED TO]
MANDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-6-72] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASHEKHAR MANJHWAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-6-73] [REFERRED TO]
JUBEEN DUBEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2021-3-105] [REFERRED TO]
SABU ALEX VS. DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU DIRECTORATE [LAWS(KER)-2021-8-122] [REFERRED TO]
K.B.BALACHANDRAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-119] [REFERRED TO]
CHET RAM SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2021-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMED ALTHAF VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(KER)-2021-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
A.K.SREEKUMAR VS. DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-207] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH TIWARI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-6-90] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESHWAR PRASAD SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
SARADHU KORETI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA SURYAWANSHI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-6-88] [REFERRED TO]
PREETI DEVI VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2020-10-58] [REFERRED TO]
SUNILKUMAR NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-8-136] [REFERRED TO]
JOHNSON PADAMADAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-191] [REFERRED TO]
MOIDEEN KUNHI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-184] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHAL AGARWAL VS. MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(CAL)-2022-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHVENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
BINU.N.E VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-192] [REFERRED TO]
VINESH KURREY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR NAIR VS. DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU [LAWS(KER)-2021-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-9-52] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The impugned order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. (MD) No. 11620 of 2009 filed by S. Janaki, the first respondent before us, directs the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, K.K. Nagar, Trichy to register a case, that is, First Information Report, on the basis of the complaint dated 18.09.2008 and after investigation file the final report in accordance with law.
(2.)Aggrieved, Mr. M. Subramaniam and Mr. R.V. Prasanna Venkatesan who were not even made parties to the aforesaid Criminal O.P. (MD) No. 11620 of 2009 have filed the present petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. By order dated 12.03.2010, the permission to file Special Leave Petition was granted and notice was issued. On considering the facts and assertions made, it was directed that in the meanwhile operation of the impugned judgment would be stayed.
(3.)In spite of the aforesaid stay, it appears that the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, K.K. Nagar, Trichy on 05.04.2010 had registered an FIR in Crime No. 7 of 2010 under Sections 403, 406, 408, 418(i), 420, 424 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the two appellants and three others. During the course of the hearing before us, the appellants have produced a copy of the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. (MD) No. 5195 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010 filed by the appellants and three others against the two respondents. By this order, the petition was partly allowed with the direction that the aforesaid case registered as Crime No. 7 of 2010 will be treated as closed. In the event of this Court dismissing the present S.L.P., the police would proceed with the investigation in Crime No. 7 of 2010 and take it to its logical conclusion by either filing charge-sheet or a final closure report as the case may be. It stands specifically directed that the police would not proceed further with the investigation till the decision of the present S.L.P.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.