1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:23.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.OP(MD)No.1992 of 2011 Pandaram :Petitioner -Vs- 1.State Rep. By The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of Police, Puliyankudi Police Station, In Cr.No.13 of 2011, Tirunelveli District. :Respondents PRAYER:This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to transfer the investigation in Cr.No.13 of 2011 dated 11.01.2011 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent to any other competent police under the control of the 1st respondent. For Petitioner :Mr.Samidurai For Respondents:Mr.L.Murugan,Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to transfer the investigation in Cr.No.13 of 2011 dated 11.01.2011 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent to any other competent police under the control of the 1s respondent. 2.Heard Mr. Samidurai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that a case was registered in Crime No. 13 of 2011 on the complaint given by the petitioner alleging that the accused persons attacked the petitioner with chappel and knife and immediately, the petitioner had given a complaint to the second respondent and a case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 355 and 506(ii) of IPC., against three persons. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner was admitted in the Government Hospital Puliyangudi and he was referred to Government hospital, Tenkasi, for further treatment. He would further submit in his argument that the accused persons attacked the petitioner with an intention to commit murder, but, the second respondent failed to register the case under Section 307 of IPC. He would further submit in his argument that the second respondent did not conduct proper investigation and therefore, it has become necessary for the petitioner to transfer the investigation in Crime No. 13 of 2011 to any other competent police under the control of the first respondent. He would therefore request the Court to transfer the investigation to some other police officer under the supervision of the first respondent police. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the investigation of the case was promptly carried out by the second respondent police, since there is no averment for the commission of murder and the allegations made against the second respondent police are not correct. He would also submit in his argument that nothing mala fide has been spoken or disclosed in the arguments advanced on the side of the petitioner and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner for transfer of investigating agency from the file of the second respondent to any other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 competent agency is not sustainable and therefore, there is no reason for transferring the investigating agency. 5.I have paid anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 6.The case was registered in Crime No. 13 of 2011 on the complaint given by the petitioner alleging that the accused persons attacked the petitioner with chappel and knife and immediately, the petitioner had given a complaint to the second respondent police and a case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 355 and 506(ii) of IPC., against three persons. The petitioner was admitted in the Government Hospital Puliyangudi and he was referred to Government hospital, Tenkasi, for further treatment. The claim of the petitioner was that during the investigation, the second respondent failed to register a case under Section 307 of IPC., against the accused persons. 7.Now it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the FIR registered by the respondent police does not contain Section 307 of IPC along with the other offences. The said action of the second respondent would go to show that the second respondent police was biased. In the earlier paragraph, we could see that the non-registration of the penal provision under Section 307 of IPC in the First Information Report was prima facie found to be not in order. Admittedly, the investigation is pending The only grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent police has failed to register a case under Section 307 of IPC and the accused persons in the FIR were not arrested. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the investigation is in a prompt line and there is no mala fide shown on the part of the second respondent. Considering the date of occurrence, registration of the case and also the investigation done by the second respondent, this Court could see that there is no reason for the investigation is transferred from the file of the second respondent to any other competent police. However, this Court is inclined to direct the second respondent itself to do the investigation and to consider the offence under Section 307 IPC through the evidence as well as the materials collected by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law after enquiring the accused persons as well as the witnesses under the supervision of the first respondent police. This Court is also inclined to direct the second respondent to file the charge sheet after obtaining the wound certificate and after appraisal of the other evidence collected during investigation. 8.With the above said observation and direction, the petition sought for the transfer of investigation is disposed of. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of Police, Puliyankudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai +1CC to Mr.K.Samidurai, Advocate. SR.No.9663. Vsm Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1992 of 2011 RP/18.03.2011/2P/5C. 23.02.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/