REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

G. Priyadarshini Appellant

V/S

STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MISS. R. SHAKUNTALA VS. ROSHANLAL AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
D.S.P.,'Q' BRANCH CID,DHARMAPURI VS. SUNDARAMOORTHY [REFERRED TO]
K.S.PALANICHAMY VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,EOW II,DINDIGUL [REFERRED TO]
KANAGARAJ VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KALIYAKKAVILAI POLICE STATION,K.K. DIST. [REFERRED TO]
AMBARISH RANGSHAHI PATNIGERE AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MITESHMAJILAL LODHIYA (CDJ 2010 BHC 1056) (VII) KANDHAL SARMAN JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
DINUBHAI BOGHABHAI SOLANKI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,TOWN POLICE STATION,KARAIKKAL VS. R.VAITHYANATHAN IYAPPAN GOVINDARAJ [REFERRED TO]
NADIR KHAN VS. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MADHU LIMAYE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
NANDINISATPATHY VS. P L DANI [REFERRED TO]
LINGALA VIJAY KUMAR VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KAPOOR VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR STATE WATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. ARUN KUMAR MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE REP VS. ANIL SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
STATE REP VS. N M T JOY IMMACULATE [REFERRED TO]
JAPANI SAHOO VS. CHANDRA SEKHAR MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
RAM JETHMALANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH VS. THALAPATHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE NOLAMBUR POLICE STATION CHENNAI VS. B RANGANATHAN [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VS. HASSAN ALI KHAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed by the defacto complainant in Cr. No. 246 of 2012 registered as against the order of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai rejecting C.M.P. No. 2097 of 2014 filed by the police (first respondent) seeking police custody of A-1 (2nd respondent) for 7 days.

(2.) Noticing the following factual matrix is suffice for the disposal of this revision.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in this case. She is interested in the collection of required evidence (investigation). A-1 is in possession of certain vital physical evidence. He knows very many things connected with this case. Thus, his custodial interrogation is very much essential. The Investigation officer filed police custody petition before the learned Magistrate well before the expiry of the first 15 days remand. However, it was misunderstood by the learned Magistrate as belated. Custodial interrogation is elicitation oriented. In the interest of investigation, it becomes necessary. Disinclination of the accused to go to police custody is not a ground to deny the genuine request of the police.

Click here to view full judgment.

G. PRIYADARSHINI Vs. STATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address