1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.336 of 2011 V.Pandi ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Inspector General of Police South Zone, Madurai. 2. The Superintendent of Police Ramanathapuram District Ramanathapuram 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District. 4. The Inspector of Police Kamuthi Police Station Ramanathapuram District 5. The Inspector of Police CBCID, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to withdraw the investigation in Crime No. 1 of 2010 from the file of fourth respondent and entrust the same to the file of the fifth respondent with a direction to investigate into the case and file charge sheet in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Petition has been filed by the petitioner/de-facto complainant to withdraw the investigation in Crime No. 1 of 2010 from the file of fourth respondent and entrust the same to the file of the fifth respondent with a direction to investigate into the case and file charge sheet in accordance with law. 2. Heard Mr. M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. 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. 1 of 2010 on the complaint given by the petitioner/defacto complainant alleging that her daughter viz., Chellavel, committed suicide, on 02.01.2010 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 immediately, the petitioner had given complaint to the 4th respondent police and a case was registered under Section 304(B) I.P.C. He would further submit in his argument that the said police during the investigation had seized the suicidal note written by the deceased person and in the said suicidal note, she had mentioned that she was abetted by the act of one family of Thavasi and Ganesan and the said person, namely, Ganesan has not been incriminated in the case. He would further submit that the suicidal note was written by the deceased herself to the parents also and in the suicidal note, she had mentioned the names of three persons viz., Poomayil, Thavasi and Alaguraja for her to come to a commission of suicide and the said note was also taken note of by the investigating agency. He would also submit that the 4th respondent had further filed a charge sheet during the pendency of this petition and that would show that the 4th respondent in order to help the person, Ganesan, who actually involved in the commission of offence omitted his name, even though his name is referred in the FIR and therefore, it is better to set aside the charge sheet filed by the respondent and to order for re-investigation and to entrust the same with the 5th respondent C.B.C.I.D. in order to render justice. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the investigation of the case was promptly carried out by the fourth respondent police and after obtaining necessary report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, the charge sheet was filed under Section 304(B) of IPC and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the important accused referred to in the suicide note was not impleaded in the charge sheet cannot be sustained. He would further submit in his argument that the evidence, other than the suicidal note, did not establish the alleged abetment of the said Ganesan in the harassment of the petitioner's daughter, Chellavel and therefore, the said accused was not impleaded in the charge sheet. He would also submit in his argument that the investigation was completed and since there was no stay order passed by this Court, the charge sheet was filed, on 25.01.2011 and the case was taken on file in P.R.C.No. 5 of 2011 and it is pending before the said Court for the appearance of the accused. Therefore, he would request the Court that the present claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained and the request of the petitioner seeking for the transfer of investigation may be dismissed. 5. I have paid anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. The case was registered in crime No. 1 of 2010 on the complaint given by the petitioner/defacto complainant alleging that her daughter viz., Chellavel, committed suicide by hanging herself, on 02.01.2010 and immediately, the petitioner had given a complaint to the 4th respondent police and a case was registered under Section 304(B) I.P.C. and the accused shown in the FIR were Alaguraja, Thavasi, Poomayil and Ganesan. In the course of the investigation, the de-facto complainant has filed this petition that the fourth respondent appears to have filed the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, against Alaguraja and two others only, deleting the fourth accused, Ganesan named in the FIR. The claim of the petitioner was that the said Ganesan was also one of the persons for the deceased to take extreme decision of committing suicide and his name was categorically referred in the suicidal note left https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 by the deceased person. The respondent police have seized the suicidal note, dated 02.01.2010 and it has been produced in the typed set of papers in page Nos. 1 to 6. It has been mentioned in the relevant portion of the suicidal note as follows:- 'oiuth; fnzrd; nghy Ml;fs; me;j MS kfs; 2-k; jhukhf fy;ahzk; bra;J bfhLf;fDk;dh jhuhskhf gz;zyhk; mjw;F ehnd vd; FLk;gj;jpnyh ve;j tpjj;jpYk; jl';fyhf ,Uf;f khl;nlhk; Mdhy; fnzrd; Vd; vd;idg;gw;wp ngha;ahf fij brhy;yp jphpapJ xUtiu fj;jpahy; Fj;jpahy; bfhd;why; jhd; nfhiy ,y;iy xUthpd; kdij fhag;gLj;Jjy; Tl bfhiy jhd; me;jtifapy; ehd; jw;nfhiy Koit vLf;f fhukhzth;fs; jtrp FLk;gKk; oiuth; fnzrDnk MFk; . ... ehd; vt;tst[ ntjidapy; ,e;j Koit vLj;jpUf;fpnwndh vd; caph; gphpa[k; nghJ vt;tst[ ntjid mDgtpf;fg;nghnwndh mijtpl gy kl';F mjpfkh me;j jtrp FLk;gKk; fnzrDk; mDgtpg;gh';f ,J me;j jpUr;nre;Jh; KUfd; kPJ rj;jpak;. ,dp fnzrd; jd; kfis vd;d jhd; kidtpiaa[k; Nrh;j;J jtrp tPl;oy; fy;ahzk; gd;dpf; bfhLf;fl;Lk; . 7. The meaning of the said suicidal note would prima facie incriminate the said Ganean for abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased, Chellavel and merely because, the death was concluded to be a dowry death and the supplemental and the relevant abetment caused by other persons cannot be discarded by deleting the said person from the charge sheet. The omission of the said person cannot be done by the respondent police, since there is a prima facie case. 8. Now it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent police have filed the charge sheet, on 25.01.2011 and it was taken on file by the Jurisdictional Magistrate, in P.R.C.No. 5 of 2011. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the charge sheet filed before the said Court does not contain the name of the said Ganesan, who was already arrayed as fourth accused in the FIR. The said filing of the charge sheet was done during the pendency of the present Petition seeking for the transfer of the investigation from the file of the fourth respondent to the fifth respondent police. Even though no direction to defer the filing of charge sheet as ordered by this Court, it is for the fourth respondent police to await filing of the charge sheet as per the decision to be reached by this Court in this Criminal Original Petition. But it was not followed. The said action of the fourth respondent would go to show that the fourth respondent police was biased. In the earlier paragraph, we could see that the deletion of the fourth accused in the charge sheet was prima facie found to be not in order and the charge sheet filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the present Petition omitting the said fourth accused, Ganesan, in the charge sheet is therefore not sustainable. Therefore, filing of the charge sheet is liable to be quashed in order to prevent abuse of process of law. Therefore, the FIR pending before the fourth respondent after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 the quashment of the charge sheet filed on 25.01.2011, cannot be entrusted with the fourth respondent police to continue the same, in view of the fact that the fourth respondent police is biased over, the request of the petitioner. 9. In view of the quashment of the charge sheet filed, on 25.01.2011, the proceedings taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate in P.R.C.No. 5 of 2011, is also liable to be quashed. In the previous discussion, it has been found that the investigation in Crime No.1 of 2010 after the quashment of the charge sheet filed, on 25.01.2011, cannot be entrusted the fourth respondent and therefore, it has to be transferred to the fifth respondent for continuing the same and to consider all the aspects after gathering proper evidence in the remaining investigation and to file a charge sheet, considering the suicidal note of the deceased as one of the pieces of evidence. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the Petition filed by the petitioner for transferring of investigation from the file of the fourth respondent to the file of the fifth respondent is ordered. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of. vsg Sd/- Deputy Registrar[LA] /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai. 2. The Superintendent of Police Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District 4. The Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station Ramanathapuram District. 5. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Ramanathapuram District. 6. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate SR.No.4502. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.336 of 2011 Dated:04.02.2011 4P/8C RPB 22.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/