1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:11.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.173 of 2011 R.Wilson Chinnadurai ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Thirukattuppalli Police Station, Thanjavur District. (FIR No.160 of 2010) 3. The Inspector, C.B.C.I.D., Thanjavur. 4. R.Maharajan ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to pass an order withdrawing the investigation of the case of FIR No.160 of 2010 from the file of the second respondent and transferring the same to any other competent police officer, more particularly to the third respondent herein. For Petitioner : M/s. D.Gnanasekaran For R1 to R3 : Mrs.S.Devasena Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to transfer the investigation from the file of the second respondent to the file of the third respondent for continuation of the investigation and to file a charge sheet. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the daughter of the petitioner was not at all traced, even though he has clearly mentioned and furnished every particulars https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 in the complaint which was registered in Crime No.160 of 2010 and it is pending for a longer period. He would further submit in his argument that in an earlier occasion, the petitioner has filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12274 of 2010 and this Court has passed an order directing the second respondent to investigate the matter under the supervision of the first respondent police by filing weekly reports of the first respondent and to complete the investigation in the near future. He would also submit that the said direction was not complied with and no such method has been followed by the second respondent police. He would further submit that even though he has filed a petition in H.C.P.(MD)No.687 of 2010 and an order has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the same was also not hided. In the said circumstances, he would submit that there is no other option, except to transfer the investigating agency and to solve the problem. Therefore, he would request the Court that transfer the investigation from the file of the second respondent to the third respondent. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in her argument that it has been explained in the status report and broad based investigation has been made and he examined several persons and had published in local vernacular news paper and also steps were taken to telecast the news in local cable televisions and also placed so many informants for the purpose of getting secret information. She would further submit in her argument that there is no question of any transfer of investigation, since the whereabouts of the accused person and the girl could be secured in the near future. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides. 6. In an earlier occasion, the petitioner has filed a petition in H.C.P.(MD)No.687 of 2010 and a direction has been given by the Division Bench of this Court to do the investigation as expeditiously as possible. Similarly, the petitioner had already filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12274 of 2010 for transfer of investigation from the file of the second respondent to third respondent and this Court by its order dated 26.10.2010 that the first respondent shall see as to whether the second respondent does the investigation properly and to find out and trace the girl as expeditiously as possible by calling weekly reports from the second respondent. I could not find any evidence of calling for weekly reports by the first respondent or supplementary weekly reports filed by the second respondent as directed by this Court. Still the victim girl has not been traced. By this time, the second respondent could have advertised in the local cable televisions or the vernacular newspaper. But it has been stated in the status report that he is going to take steps for such advertisements. The case has been registered on 21.07.2010 and still it has not been published in the media like cable television or in the Doordarshan. In the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to transfer the investigation from the file of the second respondent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvaiyaru for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 continuation of the said investigation. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvaiyaru is directed to do the investigation as expeditiously as possible and to secure the girl and file a charge sheet in a near future and report the filing of the charge sheet immediately on filing so. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is ordered. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvaiyaru. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Thirukattuppalli Police Station, Thanjavur District. 4. The Inspector, C.B.C.I.D., Thanjavur. 5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Dr.D.Gnanasekaran, Advocate (SR.No.5462) Crl.O.P.(MD).No.173 of 2011 11.02.2011 akv NSV/10.3.11/3P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/