1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1355 of 2011 Subbulakshmi ... Petitioner Vs 1. State rep. by The Superintendent of Police Karur District, Karur 2. The Inspector of Police Chinthamanipatti Police Station Karur District (Crime No.17 of 2011) 3. The Inspector of Police CBCID, Karur District, Karur ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to withdraw the case in Crime No. 17 of 2011 on the file of the second respondent and to transfer the same to the third respondent or any other agency. *** For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mathiyalagan For Respondents : Mrs.S.Devasena Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to withdraw the case in Crime No. 17 of 2011 on the file of the second respondent and to transfer the same to the third respondent or any other agency. 2. Heard Mr.R.Mathiyalagan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mrs.S.Devasena, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the occurrence had happened on 11.01.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., and the petitioner's husband along with 25 others came to the petitioner's working place at Arulmighu Tharagampatti, Karur District, in a drunken mood and armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the petitioner and they stolen television set, mixer grinder, refrigerator, bureau, bed, gas stove and house hold articles worth about Rs.3 lakhs and they abducted the petitioner. He would further submit in his argument that the complaint was immediately given, on 12.01.2011 and the same was refused by the second respondent and therefore, he has sent it through registered post and thereafter, it was registered in C.S.R.No. 8 of 2011, on 14.01.2011. He would further submit in his argument that the case has been registered in Crime No. 17 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 354, 342, 506(ii) and 379 IPC only on 21.01.2011 and the stolen properties have not been recovered so far even though the FIR named the accused persons and the second respondent is not promptly investigating the case and recovered the articles. He would further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 submit in his argument that the accused is having money and muscle power and they have political influence also and if for any reason, the object of the accused is achieved, the petitioner will be put into great loss and therefore, it has become necessary to transfer the case from the file of the second respondent to the file of the third respondent. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in her argument that the petitioner has given a complaint only on 14.01.2011 through post and it was immediately registered in C.S.R.No. 8 of 2011 and thereafter, it was registered in Crime No.17 of 2011 and the investigation is being carried on promptly and the allegations made against the second respondent police that the accused persons are influenced by the police and other aspects regarding lethargy on investigation are not correct. She would further submit in her argument that the investigation is offing and there is no mala fide on the part of the second respondent and therefore, the claim of the petitioner has to be dismissed. 5. Considering the submissions made by either side, this Court could see that the complaint was given through registered post and it reached the second respondent police, on 14.01.2011 and immediately registered in C.S.R.No. 8 of 2011 and thereafter, the FIR was also registered in Crime No. 17 of 2011, on 21.01.2011. Admittedly, the investigation is pending. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the accused persons, who are named in the FIR were not arrested and the articles were not seized. 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 petition is transferred from the file of the second respondent to the file of the third respondent. However, this Court is inclined to direct the second respondent to do the investigation for the recovery of the articles and to produce them in accordance with law after enquiring the accused persons as well as the witnesses. This Court is also inclined to grant three months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to complete the investigation and to file the charge sheet as requested by the learned counsel for the State. 6. With the above said observation and direction, the petition sought for the transfer of investigation is disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The Superintendent of Police Karur District, Karur 2. The Inspector of Police Chinthamanipatti Police Station Karur District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 3. The Inspector of Police CBCID, Karur District, Karur 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai + 1 cc to Mr.R.Mathiyalagan, Advocate, SR No.4264 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1355 of 2011 03.02.2011 vsg RJ/9.2.11 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/