![]() Tuesday, Mar 22, 2005 |
| Tamil Nadu | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Tamil Nadu
-
Madurai
By Our Staff Reporter
MADURAI, MARCH 21 . The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court today transferred the investigation of an accident case to the Crime Branch-CID, taking a serious note of allegations, levelled against a sub-inspector attached to the Sholavandan station, of tampering with a first information report in the custody of a lower court and registering two FIRs under the same crime number to help the accused escape punishment. Though the petitioner prayed for quashing one of the two FIRs, Justice M. Chockalingam transferred the investigation after perusing the records called from the lower court and the police station. He directed the investigating agency to complete the probe and file a report before the judicial magistrate concerned in three months. R. Selvam of Madurai said his son, Sunderesan (22), along with 10 friends, went to the Kutladampatti falls on a picnic on six two-wheelers. When the group returned, a lorry hit his son's motorcycle near Thiruvedagam on October 3. While Sunderesan was killed on the spot, the pillion rider, Guna alias Gunasekaran, died at a hospital. A complaint was lodged with the Sholavandan station by a passer by. The police registered a case, implicating the driver as the accused. The police handed over a copy of the FIR (No: B746839) to the complainant. Later, on coming to know that the lorry did not possess mandatory documents, the police, under the influence of the lorry owner, destroyed the FIR and registered another, bearing serial number B746843, implicating the deceased, Sunderesan, as the accused. However, since the earlier FIR was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate IV here, the sub-inspector erased the name of the driver in the accused column and entered the name of the deceased. But by absence of mind, the police officer failed to note that the serial numbers in the court and the one created in the station were different. Arguing for the petitioner, K.R. Laxman said there could not be two FIRs for a case. When the police officer had no authority to suo motu alter or destroy an FIR without complying with the procedures, the officer forging the court records would amount to a serious offence under the Indian Penal Code. Pointing out that the law governing police authorities mandated them to maintain the FIR with reliable information, he said the act of the police officer in helping the culprits escape amounted to miscarriage of justice.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2005, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|