The Madras High Court heard a matter concerning a jewel theft reported in 2015 at Cuddalore, which remained unresolved for several years. The case drew attention after a petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking a direction to file a final report regarding the missing jewels. The Petitioner highlighted that despite lodging a complaint years ago, no significant action had been taken by the police, raising concerns about procedural lapses and accountability in the investigation.
Records revealed that the complaint had initially been closed in 2017 as the case remained undetected. The petitioner contended that no final report or closure report had been filed in court, and copies had not been served to him. The Court also sought information about the police officers responsible during the period from 2015, including the Superintendents of Police and Station House Officers, noting the supervisory responsibilities of senior officers in overseeing investigations.
During arguments, the state contended that the failure to follow procedure rested with the Investigating Officers and could not automatically be attributed to the Superintendents of Police who held the post over the relevant period. The petitioner, however, emphasised the importance of supervisory accountability and continuous oversight to ensure procedural compliance in unresolved cases.
The Court closely examined the roles of all officers involved, including the recently appointed Special Investigation Officer, and reviewed the procedures followed in the investigation. The Court stressed that while senior officers are expected to monitor investigations, lapses by subordinate officers should not directly result in disciplinary action against them unless there is clear evidence of negligence.
The Court allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the direction of the Single Judge to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Superintendents of Police for the procedural lapses of the subordinate officers. However, it clarified that all other directions issued by the Single Judge, including the continuation of the investigation by the Special Investigation Officer and procedural compliance, must be scrupulously followed. The Court emphasised that accountability must be appropriately assigned, distinguishing between supervisory oversight and direct procedural responsibility.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu Rep & Anr. Vs Vijayarani
Case No.: LPA.No.45 of 2025 & CMP.No.21496 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Ashish Shroti
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv.A. Damodaran (Additional Public Prosecutor)
Counsel for the Respondent: N.Palani Kumar
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :