1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition (MD)No.660 of 2011 A.Muthu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State rep. By:: Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Tuticorin District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District,Thoothukudi. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, direct the 1st respondent to look into my complaint dated 20.12.2010 and investigate it along with the crime No.1026 of 2010 in accordance with law under the supervision of the second respondent within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan For Respondents :Mr.L.Murugan, Govt. Advocate( Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the brother of the defacto complainant viz., Santhanamari, seeking for direction to dispose of the complaint given by him dated 20.12.2010 while investigating the crime No.1026 of 2010 registered by the first respondent police. 2.Heard Mr.Pon Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner was married to one Gangadevi and they have series of disputes in their marital life. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner's mother viz., Shanmugathai and sister Santhanamari were residing in a house and the mother of the petitioner was brutally murdered inside the house by one Durairaj, the father-in-law of the petitioner at the instigation of the said Gangadevi (wife of the petitioner). However, the F.I.R has been registered only against the said Durairaj, the father-in-law of the petitioner in crime No.1026 of 2010 on 11.11.2010 under Section 450, 302, 506(2) I.P.C. He would further submit in his argument that the 1st respondent police have nexus with the said Gangadevi and therefore, her name was left in the F.I.R. even though her name is mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, the petitioner herein has given a representation on 20.12.2010 before the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police Kovilpatti, which was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 forwarded to the 1st respondent police with an instruction to take action on or before 05.01.2011, but no action has been taken by the 1st respondent police. He would further submit that the 1st respondent police may be directed to look into the complaint dated 20.12.2010 and to investigate the same, along with crime No.1026 of 2010 in accordance with law. 4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that, no doubt, the petitioner has given a representation on 20.12.2010 which was forwarded by the ADSP to enquire into the matter and to pass orders on or before 05.01.2011. He would further submit that the F.I.R. registered against the father-in-law of the petitioner is being investigated promptly without any lacuna. He would further submit in his argument that, if for any reason, this Court is directing the 1st respondent to give effect to the representation made by the petitioner on 20.12.2010, that will be obeyed and the said representation will be taken up and considered along with other evidence gathered in the course of investigation and on the basis of such evidence, the charge sheet will be filed. 5.I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 6.It is not in dispute that a case has been registered by the 1st respondent police against one Durairaj in crime No.1026 of 2010 under Section 450, 302 and 506(2) I.P.C. for murdering Shanmugathai, the mother of the petitioner on the complaint filed by one Santhanamari, the sister of the petitioner. Admittedly, the said investigation is offing. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said murder was instigated by his wife Gangadevi and the accused Durairaj had acted on the instigation of the said Gangadevi and committed the murder. According to the petitioner, the said Gangadevi, none other than the wife of the petitioner is ought to have been included in the case registered by the police. The representation of the petitioner for the said purpose was admittedly handed over to the 1st respondent police through the ADSP, where the petitioner has filed the said representation. 7.The learned Government Advocate had submitted that the representation was already directed to be persuaded along with other evidence collected so far, in order to file the charge sheet in the said case. 8. No doubt, it is true that the representation made by the petitioner is in the hands of the 1st respondent police. The case was registered only against one Durairaj, the father-in-law of the petitioner on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint. However, the representation made by the petitioner was to the effect that one Gangadevi, the wife of the petitioner was also involved in the said commission of murder. The respondents are already obliged to do investigation in accordance with law and to find out the truth and they can even file the charge sheet against the persons who were involved in the crime, despite their names were not found in the F.I.R. or in the list of accused. F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and it can be altered or varied in the course of investigation. The representation given by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 petitioner is only an information to the police for doing investigation in a right way. Therefore, there may not be any harm to the investigation if the representation is considered and to act in accordance with law. 9.Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the representation given by the petitioner dated 20.12.2010 can also be considered by the 1st respondent police and to do investigation impartially and to file the charge sheet on the basis of the evidence gathered. 10.With the aforesaid direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( LA ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR arul TO 1.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Tuticorin District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1CC TO MR. R. PON KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE,SR: 3163: DM:2011:FEBRUARY:02: Crl.O.P.(MD) No.660 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/