1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15168 of 2011 M.Mohamed Abdul Kathar Jaillani ...Petitioner -Vs- 1.State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Karivalamvantha Nallur, Tirunelveli District Crime No.171 of 2011 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Tirunelveli Tirunelveli District. (R3 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 01.12.2011) ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to change the investigating agency from the hands of 1st respondent to some other competent agency in respect of the crime No.171 of 2011. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to change the investigating agency from the hands of 1st respondent to some other competent agency in respect of the crime No.171 of 2011. 2. Heard Mr.S.Ramasamy learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the complaint given by the petitioner was registered in crime No.171 of 2011 before the first respondent police and it is being investigated in a lethargic manner and no break through has been obtained and they are not interested in doing further investigation or for doing effective investigation. He would further submit that the first respondent has not even enquired the matter with the petitioner and also not examined any witnesses. He would further submit that the first respondent has not collected any documents in order to strengthen the case of the prosecution and therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 he has come forward with this petition to change the investigation on the file of the first respondent police to some other competent agency. He would further submit that if for any reason, this Court is not inclined to transfer the same, suitable orders may be passed so as to have a transparent and efficient investigation of the case under the supervision of the second respondent. 4. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the investigation is being carried on by the first respondent police in a fair manner and without any partiality. He would further submit that they are awaiting for G.P. opinion for documents verification and they are ready to instruct the second respondent, the Superintendent of Police, to monitor the investigation processed under the first respondent. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the case has been registered in crime No.171 of 2011 and it is being investigated by the first respondent police, however, the petitioner has lost faith with the investigation of the first respondent. 6. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the second respondent, viz., the Superintendent of Police to supervise and monitor the investigation and to issue suitable direction to the first respondent, to examine the petitioner as well as the other witnesses and to record 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement and to file the charge sheet as expeditiously as possible. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Karivalamvantha Nallur, Tirunelveli District 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. +One Cc to Mr.S.Ramasamy, Advocate, SR.No.43817 vsm rl/6c – 21.12.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15168 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/