ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a fresh investigation and inquiry, in respect of Crime No.398/2007, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruchengode.
3. It has been stated that the petitioner is the father of N.Divya, who had died, on 16.7.2007, while she was pursuing her plus one course, in Vidya Vikas Higher Secondary School (for Girls), Thiruchengode, Namakkal District.
4. It has been further stated that the petitioner s daughter, N.Divya, had died, under suspicious circumstances. Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a fresh investigation and inquiry, in respect of Crime No.398/2007, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiurchengode.
5. It has been further stated that the petitioner had admitted his daughter in the fifth respondent School, on 1.6.2007. She was also admitted in the Hostel attached to the said School. As the living conditions in the Hostel were very poor, the daughter of the petitioner had been complaining about the lack of facilities in the Hostel. Therefore, Amudha, the Chief Warden of the Hostel, had started disliking, N.Divya, the daughter of the petitioner. Thereafter, she had been abusing the petitioner s daughter, by using filthy language and had also been assaulting her, physically. While so, at 11.30 p.m., on 16.7.2007, the petitioner had been informed that she had fainted and that she had been taken to a local private Hospital. A little later, the petitioner had been informed that his daughter had died, as she had not responded to the medical treatment given to her.
6. The petitioner had further stated that, on personal enquiry, it was learnt that Amudha had beaten up his daughter, severely, for not attending the night study. Even though the petitioner s daughter was in great pain and agony, she was not taken to the Hospital, immediately. In such circumstances, it was suspected that N.Divya had died of physical injuries caused to her by Amudha, the Chief Warden of the Hostel.
7. It had also been stated that N.Divya was a hale and healthy child. She did not have any physical complications, as alleged by the school authorities.
8. It had been further stated that when the petitioner had arrived at the School, on receiving the information about the death of his daughter, he was not allowed to make enquiries with her roommates and classmates, with regard to the death of his daughter. Further, he had not been allowed to talk to the Chief Warden of the Hostel. In such circumstances, the petitioner was under a reasonable suspicion about the nature of the death of his daughter. Therefore, the petitioner had lodged a First Information Report before the fourth respondent Police. However, no action had been taken by the respondents 1 to 4, against the respondents 5 to 7. Instead, the file relating to the death of N.Divya, the daughter of the petitioner, had been closed stating that she had died of natural causes, due to her pre-existing disease. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to make complaints before the District Collector, the Superintendent of Police and the Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal District, as well as before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission. Thereafter, the petitioner had written letters, to the authorities concerned, to furnish the necessary information, as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Thereafter, the fourth respondent had sent a reply, dated 17.10.2007, stating that the petitioner s daughter had died only due to her pre-existing disease and the respondents 5 to 7 were in no way responsible for the death of the petitioner s daughter.
9. It had also been stated that, on 3.10.2007, the viscera collected from the dead body of the petitioner's daughter had been sent to the General Hospital, Coimbatore, for chemical analysis. In such circumstances, the petitioner had moved a Criminal Original Petition, in Crl.O.P.No.9864 of 2008, before this Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The fourth respondent had stated in his counter affidavit that the investigation had been completed and it has been sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer/Executive Magistrate, Thiruchengode, under Section 174 of the said Code. In the Criminal Original Petition filed by the petitioner, this Court had held that the question of transferring the case from the file of the Inspector of Police, to any other agency, did not arise. If the petitioner was aggrieved, it was open to him to seek an appropriate remedy before the Competent Jurisdictional Criminal Court.
10. It had been further stated that, at the time of moving the Criminal Original Petition, in Crl.O.P.No.9864 of 2008, the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer was not made available to the petitioner. However, when it was made available to the petitioner, it was found that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who had not conducted the inquest and enquiry, relating to the death of the petitioner s daughter, had failed to follow the norms prescribed, under Sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
11. It had also been stated that the procedures contemplated, under Sections 165 and 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had not been followed.
12. The petitioner had also stated that the post-mortem report and the inquest report, which were to be kept confidential by the fourth respondent, till the completion of the investigation, had been sent to the petitioner, by Fax, from the fifth respondent School. The act of the fourth respondent makes it clear that he was trying to shield the authorities of the fifth respondent School, who were involved in the death of N.Divya. Even though the viscera of the deceased N.Divya ought to have been sent for chemical analysis, immediately, in order to ascertain the cause of her death, it had been sent to the Forensic Department, Coimbatore, only, on 3.10.2007, after 76 days of the occurrence. Thus, it is clear that the death of N.Divya, the daughter of the petitioner, was unnatural, contrary to the claims made by the School authorities. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4, to conduct a fresh investigation and inquiry, in respect of Crime No.398/2007, relating to the death of N.Divya, the daughter of petitioner.
13. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been stated that, on the night of 16.7.2007, N.Divya, had been suffering from physical problem. Therefore, she was admitted for treatment, in the Government Hospital, Thiruchengode. Since, the doctor, who was in-charge, had found that N.Divya had died, the body was sent for post-mortem, on 17.7.2007. The Forensic Science Department had given an analysis report, dated 1.11.2007, stating that no poison was detected in the samples taken from the body of Divya. In the meantime, the First Information Report was registered by the Inspector of Police, Rural Police Limit, Thiruchengode, in the First Information Report No. 398/2007, dated 17.7.2007, under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
14. It had been further stated that the Inspector of Police (Rural), Thiruchengode, the fourth respondent, had held an inquest over the body of the deceased Divya in the presence of the Panchayatdars, and many witnesses had been examined, including the father of the deceased, Divya. On enquiry, it was concluded that the student had died due to her physical illness. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that his daughter had died, under suspicious circumstances, cannot be accepted. As such, the school authorities are not responsible for the death of deceased, Divya, contrary to the allegations made by the petitioner.
15. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fifth respondent, the averments and allegations made by the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, had been denied.
16. It has been stated that the allegations made by the petitioner, regarding the facilities provided to the students, in the Hostel attached to the fifth respondent School, are false. It had also been stated that the allegations of the petitioner that his daughter had been physically assaulted is not true. In fact, Divya, the daughter of the petitioner, had died due to certain physical illness, for which she was undergoing treatment.
17. It had also been stated that proper investigation had been done by the respondents 1 to 4 and it was found that the school authorities are not responsible for the death of Divya.
18. It had also been stated that the petitioner had made several representations to the educational authorities, as well as to the high level police authorities concerned. Further, the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, had called for an enquiry report. Based on the enquiry report, it was found that the death of N.Divya was not due to certain suspicious circumstances, as alleged by the petitioner. The post-mortem report makes it clear that no external injuries were found on the body of N.Divya.
19. It has also been stated that all the necessary formalities had been followed by the authorities concerned, while conducting the enquiry into the death of N.Divya, the daughter of the petitioner. Further, this Court had passed an order, in Crl.O.P.No.9864 of 2008, denying the request of the petitioner to shift the investigation, from the file of the local police, to an independent investigating agency, by its order, dated 16.7.2008. Thus, it is clear that the allegations made by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, are devoid of merits.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the decisions, in NILABATI BEHERA ALIAS LALITA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS (1993 ACJ 787) and BABUBHAI JAMNADAS PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS (2010) 1 SCC (CRI) 79), to state that this court can direct the investigating agency to conduct the investigation, in a fair and unbiased manner, and to direct the Executive Magistrate concerned to cause a fresh enquiry, relating to the circumstances leading to the death of the petitioner's daughter.
21. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not been in a position to show, prima facie, that the death of the daughter, N.Divya, was due to unnatural circumstances.
22. It had also been seen that necessary enquiries had been made by the respondents 1 to 4 and it had been found that the respondents 5 to 7 are not responsible for the death of the petitioner s daughter. Further, this Court had passed an order, dated 16.7.2008, in Crl.O.P.No.9864 of 2008, rejecting the request of the petitioner, for transferring the case for the purpose of investigation, by an independent agency.
23. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show as to why no petition had been moved before the Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned or before this Court, under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking an appropriate remedy, as observed by this Court, by its order, dated 16.7.2008, made in Crl.O.P.No.9864 of 2008.
24. This Court is also of the view that no concrete results could be arrived at, at this length of time, when the death of the petitioner s daughter had occurred, on 16.7.2007. In such view of the matter, this court finds it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 21.3.2012.