1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition (MD)No.982 of 2011 P.Seeni Mohammed ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State through the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Solavandhan Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct proper investigation and trace out the vehicle No.TN 64 9888 which is involved in crime No.243 of 2010 for alleged offence under Section 304(A) I.P.C. and to file the final report within the time frame fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan, Govt. Advocate( Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct proper investigation and trace out the vehicle No.TN 64 9888 which is involved in crime No.243 of 2010 for alleged offence under Section 304(A) I.P.C. and to file the final report within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. Heard Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, 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's son viz., Azees Mohammed met with an accident and the vehicle involved in the said accident was a car bearing Registration No.TN-64-9888 proceeding from Madurai to Dindigul near Thiruvayanalloor junction and he died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and the occurrence was witnesses by one Hidayathulla, who also belong to the petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 area and still the said vehicle was not traced or the driver of the vehicle has not been arrested. He would further submit in his argument that suitable orders may be issued against the respondents 1 and 2 for proper investigation and to file the charge sheet within a time frame. 4. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the investigation is being carried out by the 2nd respondent and the vehicle number as mentioned in the petition was not correct and on verification of the toll gate entries, the said vehicle did not pass through the said road and the further investigation is offing and the 2nd respondent police will get a breakthrough in respect of getting the correct number of the vehicle and file the charge sheet within a short period of time. He would further submit in his argument that the vehicle number has not been shown in the F.I.R. and therefore, the respondent cannot pinpoint any car as pointed out by the petitioner to do the investigation and therefore, he submits that the direction as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the petitioner's son was dead due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident happened on 10.09.2010 in Madurai to Dindigul Road near Thiruvayanallur. However, it has been mentioned by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the vehicle involved is a car bearing Registration No.TN-64-9888 and he would insist in his argument that the said information has been spoken by one eye witness Hidayathulla. However, it has been refuted that the said vehicle has not been passed through the tollgate and the investigation is still pending because of the locating the car, which involved in the said accident. 6. In the said circumstances, we cannot find fault with the respondent police for not taking any action in pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner as defacto complainant. However, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to verify as to the involvement of the car TN 64-9888 in the accident, as stated by the petitioner and if not, to proceed further in looking the car actually involved in the said accident and to complete the investigation within a span of three months time and to file charge sheet before the jurisdictional magistrate. The 1st respondent, the Superintendent of Police is directed to supervise the investigation done by the 2nd respondent in this matter and to see the 2nd respondent to file the charge sheet within the time as granted by this Court. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Solavandhan Police Station, Madurai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.982 of 2011 01.02.2011 arul NSV/23.2.11/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/