Madras High Court Stays Single Judge Order Directing Suspension Of DySP Over Failure To File Final Report

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan ordered interim stay in a Letter Patent Appeal filed by the DySP challenging the order passed by Justice P Velmurugan, directing the DGP to take action.

“In view of the prima facie case made out, there shall be an order of interim stay, insofar as it relates to paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.18585 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025, pending disposal of these Letters Patent Appeals,” the court said.

When a question was raised as to the maintainability of a Letter Patent Appeal against an order by a judge exercising criminal jurisdiction, the court noted that the LPA would be maintainable against that part of the order, wherein the judge was not exercising criminal jurisdiction.

“On a prima facie view, the present L.P.As may be maintainable, in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in K.Natrajan Vs. Kadekdwi Ani Rasmini and Ors in C.M.P.No.2614 of 2020 in W.A.SR.No.140650 of 2019, wherein the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji Vs. State of Haryana & Ors reported in (2017) 5SCC Page 53 has been distinguished and held that the portion of the Judgment, which does not exercise criminal jurisdiction can be challenged by way of LPA. Since the appellants herein have challenged that portion of the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge, wherein they claim that the criminal jurisdiction has not been exercised, LPAs may be maintainable,” the court noted.

BACKGROUND

The single judge had passed the order on 14^th July 2025, while disposing a plea seeking directions to the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct proper investigation and final report in a case registered for offences under Sections 147, 447, 294(b), 323, 324, 354-B, 384, 427, and 506(ii) of the IPC along with Sections 3(1)(a) ad Section 3(2)(a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The FIR was registered on January 24, 2024.

When the case was taken up, the Government Advocate had informed the court that the complaint was closed after enquiry and forwarded to the District Collector.

The court noted that, as per Section 173 of the CrPC, the final report was to be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate or Special Court. The court also noted that at the time of closing the complaint, no RCS notice was served on the complainant. The court added that forwarding the paper to the District Collector, without placing it before the concerned court was wholly impermissible and reflected a serious procedural irregularity.

Since the complaint was closed by Sunil, who was the Investigating Officer at the time, the court directed the DGP to place the officer under suspension and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings. The DGP was also directed to file an Action Taken Report along with a compliance affidavit.

This part of the order has now been temporarily stayed by the division bench.

It may also be noted that, on a similar set of facts, Justice P Velmurugan had ordered the suspension of another DySP.

Counsel for Appellants: Mr. Suhrith Parthasarthy

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. S. Sathiachandran for Mr.D.Ashok Kumar, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, APP

Case Title: S Sunil v. Senthamarai and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 270

Case No: LPA 41 of 2025