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.15948 of 2011 Poovalingam ... Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mudukulathur,Ramanathapuram District. 3.The State through The Inspector of Police, Mudukulathur Police Station, in crime No.159 of 2011 Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to change the investigation on the file of the 3rd respondent police to any other appropriate authority as this Court may deem fit. For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman For Respondents: Mr.P.Kannithevan,GovernmentAdvocate( Crl.Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to change the investigation on the file of the 3rd respondent police to any other appropriate authority as this Court may deem fit. 2. Heard Mr.K.R.Laxman, 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.159 of 2011 before the third respondent police and it is being investigated in a lethargic manner and there is no break through obtained and they are not interested in doing further investigation or for doing effective investigation. He would further submit that the third respondent have not perused the medical record and also never considered his appeal to alter the sections to the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. by considering the grave injuries caused to the victims and therefore, he has come forward this petition to change the investigation on the file of the 3rd respondent police to any other appropriate authority. He would further submit that if for any reasons, 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 first respondent. 4. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the investigation is being carried on by the third respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 police in a fair manner and without any partiality. He would further submit that they are awaiting for wound certificate and they are ready to instruct the first respondent, the Superintendent of Police, to monitor the investigation processed under the third respondent. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the case has been registered in crime No.159 of 2011 and it is being investigated by the third respondent police, however, the petitioner has lost faith with the investigation of the third respondent. 6. In such circumstances, I could direct the first respondent to supervise the investigation done by the third respondent and the third respondent is directed to receive the wound certificate as expeditiously as possible and see as to whether there was any serious injury on the head of the defacto complainant or there was any other injury on his person. If it's a grievous one, the third respondent shall alter the charges and file the final report as expeditiously as possible. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of. sd/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR(ACCOUNTS) /TRUE COPY/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. vsm To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mudukulathur,Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Mudukulathur Police Station,Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. 1cc To Mr.K.R.Laxman, Advocate SR No.43921 SB 29/12/2011 2P 6C Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15948 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/