Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Manimeglai vs State Represented By on 18 November, 2016

C.Palanichamy vs / on 27 March, 2019

She had deposed that the villagers tried to compromise the issue but both the parties refused to settle the dispute amicably. This is the reason why there was delay of 10 days in lodging the complaint. Therefore, the Government Advocate would submit that no prejudice caused to the accused persons, in the delay of registering the F.I.R. After authorisation received from the Superintendent of Police, as per the rules framed under the SC/ST (POA) Act, the Deputy Superintendent of Police PW.10 has taken up the investigation though there is a delay in completing the investigation and filing the final report. The delay has not caused any prejudice to the accused persons and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant in Manimeglai & others Vs. State http://www.judis.nic.in represented by Inspector of Police, Adhiyamankottai reported in 6 CDJ 2016 MHC 6051 has no application.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document
1