1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.7727 of 2011 T.Kanaga ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2.The Inspector of Police, Alwarthirunagari Police Station, Thoothukudi District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, Chennai. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the first respondent to withdraw the investigation pending on the file of the second respondent in Crime No.30 of 2011 and entrust the same to the competent officer of the third respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Christopher For Respondents: Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition is filed seeking for a direction to direct the first respondent to withdraw the investigation, pending on the file of the second respondent in Crime No.30 of 2011 and entrust the same to the competent officer of the third respondent. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased Thangaraj, was working under one Suresh @ Kannan. On 08.02.2011, the said Suresh @ Kannan, the proposed accused have came to the house of the petitioner and bring the petitioner's husband for doing construction work at Alwarthirunagari, Thoothukudi District. But his body was found on 15.02.2011 and the case has been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 The Post-mortem report reveals that the death is due to drowning. On 13.02.2011, one co-employee came to the house of the petitioner and handed over weekly salary of the deceased Thanjaraj and similarly on 20.02.2011, 27.02.2011 and 06.03.2011 one Raja, the proposed accused, came to the house of the petitioner and gave money to her. The petitioner has came to know about the death of the deceased only on 13.03.2011. The petitioner was never examined by the investigating officer. The investigating officer has not investigate the matter in a proper manner. Hence, the petitioner seeks direction to the first respondent to withdraw the investigation from the second respondent and entrust the same to the third respondent. 3.A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. In that, it has been specifically stated that on 15.02.2011, a dead body was found under South Channel Minor Bridge. Thereafter, the case has been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C, after inquest conducted in accordance with law by the learned Executive II Class Magistrate (Thasildar) Tiruchendur. Thereafter, the postmortem has been conducted. Subsequently, the body was buried at Vellakoil on giving information to the local Panchayat as orphan body. 4.The petitioner herein has stated that the husband was taken by proposed A1 for manson work at Alwarthirunagari. Even though, the body was found on 15.02.2011, the factum of the death of the husband was not intimated to the petitioner. But she came to know about the death only on 13.03.2011. Even though the body was found on 15.02.2011, but three weekly salary has been paid by the proposed accused to the petitioner. Now, she suspecting the investigation of the second respondent. 5.While considering the status report in paragraph No.3 of the counter-affidavit, it has been specifically mentioned that the salary due to the deceased have been paid in installments and that she has received the weekly salary of the deceased on 20.02.2011, 27.02.2011 and 06.03.2011. While perusing the postmortem certificate, the death of the deceased is due to asphysia due to drowning, except the animal bite seen on the left side of the neck. No other external injury. In such circumstances, the petitioner alleged that the proposed accused might be caused the death of her husband. As per counter affidavit filed by this respondent Police that the body has been buried as orphan. 6.In such circumstances, I am of the view that the second respondent herein has not investigate the matter in a proper direction. Therefore, instead of transferring the investigation to the third respondent, to meet ends of justice, I direct the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi to appoint an honest and neutral investigating officer to investigate the case and file a final report and no prejudice would cause on either side. Hence, I direct the first respondent to appoint an honest and neutral investigating officer to investigate the case and file a final report https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Superintendent of Police is also directed to make a supervision over the investigating officer. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO ) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2.The Inspector of Police, Alwarthirunagari Police Station, Thoothukudi District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, Chennai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.C.Christopher, Advocate, Sr.No.28330 Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.7727 of 2011 17.08.2011 ps SMA/23.8.2011/6C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/