Judgment:
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:30.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Writ Appeal (Md.No.652 of 2014 & M.P.(Md.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 G.Velayutha Nadar ..Appellant versus 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.
by its Commissioner of Police, Trichy Town, Khajamalai Post, Trichy District.
2.The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy Town, Trichy District..Respondents PRAYER Writ appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patents Act against the order of this Court dated 04.02.2014 made in W.P.(Md.No.3457 of 2011.
!For Appellant : Mr.C.Dhanaseelan ^For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Government Pleader :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.) The appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Judge, dated 04.02.2014, in W.P.(Md.No.3457 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, seeking the transfer of an investigation into a criminal complaint in Crime No.348 of 2009 on file of the second respondent, to the file of C.B.C.I.D.2.Heard, Mr.C.Dhanaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3.The appellant is the father of one Suveetha.
She was given in marriage to one Vijayakumar.
The wedding took place at Thanjavur on 01.11.2006.
4.It appears that on 05.08.2009 at about 6.40 p.m., the appellant's elder son received a phone call from the father-in-law of Suveetha, informing him that Suveetha had died due to burn injuries.
The appellant went to the spot and thereafter, proceeded to the second respondent police station and lodged a complaint at about 21.00 hours on 05.08.2009.
A case was registered in Crime No.348 of 2009 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A Final Report was actually filed on 30.10.2009.
But not being satisfied with the manner in which the investigation proceeded, the appellant herein filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(Md.No.3300 of 2010 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the transfer of the investigation to CBCID.
The said Criminal Original Petition was disposed of by a learned Judge, by an order, dated 27.10.2010, directing the appellant to file a protest petition before the learned Magistrate.
The learned Magistrate was directed to take up the protest petition and proceed in accordance with law.
5.Thereafter, the appellant attempted to file a protest petition on the file of the learned Magistrate, but he did not do so, in view of the stand taken that the report had not been received.
Therefore, the appellant applied for information under Right to Information Act and he was informed that the final report, dated 30.10.2009 was actually handed over to the Public Prosecutor and after obtaining his information on 10.06.2010, it was filed only on 19.07.2010.
6.Therefore, the appellant came up with a writ petition in W.P.(Md.No.3457 of 2011, seeking the transfer of investigation to the CBCID.
By the time he filed this Writ Petition, the petitioner had also moved a protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.2473 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichirappalli.
Though by that time, the respondent police had filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and the same had been taken cognizance in P.R.C.No.6 of 2011, the learned Magistrate considered several aspects.
Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 16.03.2012, the operative portion of which required to be extracted.
Hence, it is extracted as follows: ".In pursuance of direction of Honourable Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.No.3300 of 2010, dated 27.10.2010 and in view of Judgment reported in 2008(1)(Crl.)432 and 2007(2) MLJ (Crl.) 646 and reason sated in the petition and in the interest of justice this Court is inclined to order further investigation with limited aspect which was stated in the petition.
Accordingly, the Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to conduct the further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.about the L.P.G.Gas Cylinder was found near the deceased body, the dead body was not fully burnt, her tongue was found protruded, she had bleeding blood from her Nos.and mouth with photo copy of deceased which was filed in this Court and do socording to law.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.".
7.It appears that thereafter, the second respondent proceeded with further investigation and filed a further report on 06.11.2013.
In the further report, the second respondent reiterated the earlier conclusion that the daughter of the appellant died of burn injuries and that it was a case of suicide.
8.On the basis of the further investigation report filed on 06.11.2013, a status report was also filed by the second respondent before the learned Judge, when the writ petition came up for hearing.
After perusing the status report, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition in W.P.(Md.No.3457 of 2011 by a final order, dated 04.02.2014, on the ground that nothing survived in this writ petition.
Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner is on appeal.
9.The grievance of the appellant, who is the father of the deceased, cannot be brushed aside either as fanciful or as baseless.
The second respondent took a stand, when the petition in Crl.O.P.(Md.No.3300 of 2010 came up for hearing that a charge sheet had been laid.
This fact is recorded in paragraph 4 of the order of the learned Judge, dated 27.10.2010, passed in Crl.O.P.(Md.No.3300 of 2010.
Paragraph 4 of the said order reads as follows: ".4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the police properly investigated into the offence and laid the charge sheet.".
10.But unfortunately, the said information has turned out to be false, as seen from the reply that the appellant got under the Right to Information Act.
In the reply, dated 30.01.2011, given by the Public Information Officer, in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order).it was categorically mentioned that the final report was prepared on 30.10.2009 and the opinion of the Public Prosecutor was obtained on 10.06.2010 and that it was filed before the Court only on 19.07.2010.
But the Forensic Report was received only on 28.09.2010, which was actually after two months of filing of the final report.
In fact, the Forensic Report had been filed into the Court on 08.02.2011 as seen from the date stamp affixed by the Judicial Magistrate's Court.
11.In other words, a final report in a case of this nature was filed by the second respondent police, without even having on hand the Forensic Report.
Hence, the appellant's grievance about the manner of investigation cannot be said to be fanciful or imaginary.
12.As a matter of fact, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, upon a consideration of a protest petition filed by the appellant in Crl.M.P.No.2473 of 2011, has indicated what is to be done by the police.
We have already extracted the operative portion of the learned Judicial Magistrate.
13.What happened after the order of the learned Magistrate is very interesting to note.
The second respondent appears to have carried out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and filed an additional report on 06.11.2013.
14.In the additional report filed by him, the second respondent had indicated what he did under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
There are only two things that the second respondent appears to have done.
The fiRs.was to make a discreet enquiry with witnesses 1 to 5, who are the neighbours to the family of the accused.
The second thing that the Investigation Officer did, was to go to another Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, by name Saravanan and have the copy of the previous Officer attested.
This was on the ground that Dr.R.V.S.Renuga Devi, who conducted the postmortem, had gone on long leave.
The further report of the second respondent shows that the Investigation Officer merely took the opinion of the previous officer to another officer and got it attested.
Showing the previous postmortem report and getting it attested from another doctor, is not what was actually expected of the second respondent.
The Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, could not have applied his mind, when a previous report was shown and his opinion sought without any other material.
Therefore, it is clear that further investigation carried out by the second respondent is a farce.
15.When the investigation into a criminal complaint of this nature, prima facie appears to be farce and does not inspire the confidence of the Court, it is always open to this Court to transfer the investigation to another agency.
It is true that transfer of investigation cannot be ordered for the asking.
There must be a strong case made out for such transfeRs.The Court should always keep in mind that either one of the parties, namely, the de-facto complainant or the accused, will never be satisfied with any kind of investigation.
But the investigation carried out should satisfy the conscience of the Court, that it was carried out a neutral manner.
16.The second respondent has been given an opportunity by this Court earlier, in the form of the order passed in Crl.O.P.(Md.No.3300 of 2010.
At least, thereafter, the quality of investigation should have been improved.
17.The further report of the second respondent, does not disclose the explanation for the additional external injuries, found on the body of the deceased, which are stated in the fiRs.postmortem to be ante-mortem.
Moreover, the burns suffered by the deceased are stated to be superficial.
The death had occurred instantaneously on the spot.
The question as to whether superficial burns could result in instantaneous death, has also not been addressed.
In view of the fact that valuable rights of defence of the accused are also involved in the case, we do not wish to record in greater detail, the pitfalls in the further report filed by the second respondent except the above two aspects.
Actually, there are more to be stated, but we refrain ourselves from doing so, so that the right of the accused is not jeopardised.
18.In the light of the at least the above two facts and the perfunctory nature of the fiRs.as well as the further investigation, we are of the view that the investigation is to be transferred to the CBCID.
These aspects, have not been taken into account by the learned Judge and the learned Judge thought that the filing of a further report, would automatically seal the fate of this prayer.
19.In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed.
The order of the learned Judge is set aside and the investigation in Crime No.348 of 2009 is transferred to the CBCID.
The Superintendent of Police, CBCID, is directed to depute an Officer for conducting further investigation.
The files shall be handed over by the second respondent to such Officer.
In view of the transfer of investigation, all further proceedings shall stand stayed until the conclusion of further investigation.
No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy Town, Khajamalai Post, Trichy District.
2.The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy Town, Trichy District.