1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.25 of 2011 Vedamuthu ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Inspector of Police Vijeyanarayanam Police Station Vijeyanarayanam Tirunelveli District 2. The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District Tirunelveli ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to withdraw the case in crime number 92 of 2010 pending on the file of the first respondent and to transfer the said case to some other Inspector of Police for further investigation under the supervision of the second respondent. For Petitioner : Ms.Benazir Begum, Advocate for Mr.V.Kannan For Respondents : Mrs.S.Devasena Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to withdraw the case in crime number 92 of 2010 pending on the file of the first respondent and to transfer the said case to some other Inspector of Police for further investigation under the supervision of the second respondent. 2. Heard Ms.Benazir Begum, for Mr.V.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Devasena, leaned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in her argument that due to pathway, there was a dispute between the petitioner and one Edwin Selvaraj and his sons Maria Anthony and his wife Emily and in that dispute, they attacked the petitioner and caused injuries. He would further submit that the first respondent herein registered a case in Crime No. 92 of 2010, on 19.11.2010, for the offences 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC and the petitioner was undergoing medical treatment from 18.11.2010 to 27.11.2010 in TVMC Hospital, Palayamkottai. He would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 further submit that the first respondent asked him to appear before him, but, no action was taken. He would further submit that the first respondent has not even examined the accused persons or other witnesses and therefore, there is a possibility for the accused to abscond from the clutches of law and tamper the evidence. He would therefore request that the case in Crime No. 92 of 2010 pending before the first respondent be transferred to some other Inspector of Police for further investigation under the supervision of the second respondent. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents would submit in her argument that the investigation itself is completed and the charge sheet has been filed as 'mistake of fact', on 14.01.2011. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that this Petition has been filed on 03.01.2011, but the first respondent has filed the charge sheet only after filing the petition and that itself would go to show that the first respondent is biased over the petitioner. 6. Considering the submissions made on either side and also considering the age of the petitioner and the allegations made in the complaint and the closure report filed by the first respondent, on 14.01.2011, soon after the filing of the present Petition, this Court is inclined to quash the said final report and review the investigation. 7. Accordingly, the final report filed by the first respondent is quashed and the second respondent is directed to entrust the case to any of the competent Investigating Officer other than the first respondent. 8. With the above direction, this Petition is disposed of. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police, Vijeyanarayanam Police Station Vijeyanarayanam, Tirunelveli District 2. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1 CC to Mr.V.Kannan, Advocate (SR.No.4111) Crl.O.P.(MD).No.25 of 2011 02.02.2011 vsg NSV/17.2.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/