1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 14663 of 2011 M.Mathivanan : Petitioner Vs. State rep. by 1.The Director General of Police Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 4 2.The Superintendent of Police Trichy, Trichy District 3.The Inspector of Police Navalpattu Police Station,Trichy District,In Cr.No. 141 of 2011 4.The Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D, Trichy,Trichy District : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer the investigation in Cr.No. 141 of 2011 dated 29.05.2011 pending on the file of the third respondent to the fourth respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vanchinathan For Respondents: Mr.P.Kannithevan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R Seeking to transfer the investigation in Cr.No. 141 of 2011 on the file of the third respondent to the file of the fourth respondent, the petitioner who is the de-facto complainant in the said case, has come up with this Petition. 2. According to the FIR, the deceased Dharman was hardly aged 14 years. He was studying in 8th standard in a local school. On 26.05.2011, he had been in the house of his uncle, who is the de-facto complainant, in this case and he was staying with him. On 29.05.2011, at about 8.00 a.m., he went out of the home in a bicycle for the purpose of buying milk. By about 9.00 a.m., the de-facto complainant was informed that he was found lying dead on Periya Suriyur Village. The de-facto complainant immediately rushed and found that the deceased was lying dead and the cycle was also lying by his side. Suspecting some foul play in his death, he preferred the complaint. Based on the same, the present case was registered by the third respondent and the investigation was taken. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the investigation has not been done properly. The Investigating Officer has not bestowed any interest in finding out the real cause of the death of the deceased. With these grievances, the petitioner has come up with this Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on instructions from the third respondent would submit that the case was investigated into and the same was closed on 30.08.2011 itself. The Inspector of Police, in- charge of the third respondent police station is present in Court and he has produced the case diary also. 5. A perusal of the same would go to show that the Investigating Officer has examined as many as 8 witnesses and no one was an eye witness to the occurrence. All the witnesses are only circumstantial witnesses, who came to the spot on hearing that the deceased was found lying dead. The Investigating Officer, has closed the case based on the opinion offered by the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. 6. A perusal of the postmortem certificate would go to show that there were injuries on the forehead, right cheek, lower lips and neck. The Doctor has further opined that there was fracture and separation of C4-C5, C5-C6 vertebral joints and there was also injury to spinal card. 7. From the statement recorded from the Doctor, it could be seen that the Doctor has said that if the deceased had fallen by beside down, this injury would have been caused. Based on the said opinion, the Investigating Officer has closed the case. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the said injury would not have been caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 9. I have perused the postmortem certificate and also perused the photographs taken on the place of occurrence. The cycle which was used by the deceased is found fallen near the body of the deceased. But the stand of the cycle is in 'stop' position. That means, the deceased would not have fallen while he was riding the cycle. This aspect has not been thoroughly investigated by the Investigating Officer. 10. Apart from that, it is doubtful whether by mere falling from cycle those injuries would have been caused. There is no explanation for the other external injuries found by the Doctor also. As it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this case requires thorough investigation by an independent investigation agency. The Investigating Officer, has simply closed the case without probing the matter meticulously. Therefore, I am of the view that it is better to entrust the investigation to a competent authority like CBCID. 11. Though the case has been closed, no such report was submitted to the Court that thus there is no judicial order. Therefore, the transferee police officer can straightway reopen the investigation. 12. In view of the above, this Petition is allowed. The case in Crime No.141 of 2011 is transferred from the file of the third respondent to the C.B.C.I.D, Trichy, with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., to entrust the investigation to any competent officer attached to the CBCID Department for reopening the investigation and to proceed with the case in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 13. It is made clear that there is no need to get any permission from any Court to reopen the investigation as there has been no judicial order accepting the final report. The Transferee Officer will be at liberty to reopen the investigation straight away, and conduct a thorough investigation and submit a proper report as expeditiously as possible. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR vsg To 1. The Director General of Police Kamarajar Salai Mylapore Chennai - 4 2. The Superintendent of Police Trichy Trichy District 3. The Inspector of Police Navalpattu Police Station Trichy District In Cr.No. 141 of 2011 4. The Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D Trichy Trichy District 5. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai DM::2011:NOVEMBER:18:: Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 14663 of 2011 12.11.2011 3P:6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/