1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.No.215 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) NO.1 of 2011 A.Baby ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State rep. by its The Sub Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 3.The Inspector of Police, C.B.c.I.D., Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to transfer the investigation of the case in crime No.563 of 2010 from the file of the Eraniel Police Station to the 3rd respondent police. For Petitioner :: Mr.N.Dilip Kumar For Respondents :: Mr.L.Murugan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to transfer the investigation of the case in crime No.563 of 2010 from the file of the Eraniel Police Station to the 3rd respondent police. 2.This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the transfer of investigation in crime No.563 of 2010 from the file of the 1st respondent police to the file of the 3rd respondent as the 1st respondent has not filed the charge sheet and had not properly done the investigation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Heard Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.L.Murugan, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the State. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that her husband was missing from 11.09.2010 when she went to Chennai and the petitioner has given a complaint to the 1st respondent police and she expressed her suspicion over the brother of her husband and her relatives viz., Laser. He would further submit in his argument that even though the case has been registered in crime No.563 of 2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., the said persons have threatened her husband through mobile phone and directly and it was stated by her husband to the petitioner. He would further submit in his argument that despite there are so many clues available with the 1st respondent police, the 1st respondent police have not got any breakthrough in the investigation and completed the same. He would therefore, request the Court to transfer the investigation for effective investigation and for filing charge sheet at an earlier point of time to the 3rd respondent from the file of the 1st respondent. 5. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the investigation is being carried on and if necessary, the petitioner will once again be examined by the 1st respondent police and the investigation would be completed in a near future and charge sheet would also be filed. He would further submit in his argument that if for any reason, the investigation is transferred from the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent has to once again go through the entire investigation and it would cause further delay in the investigation and therefore, three months time may be granted for completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet. 6.I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 7.The petitioner gave the complaint to the 1st respondent for the missing of her husband and a case has been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the investigation is being carried on. No doubt it is true that the body of the petitioner’s husband was recovered, post-mortem was also done and the post-mortem report has also been received. The cause of death is still to be determined on the receipt of the chemical analysis report. 8.According to the submission of the petitioner’s counsel, the F.I.R registered by the 1st respondent police has not been altered into one under Section 302 I.P.C on the examination of the defacto complaint against the suspected persons. All those points are to be carefully perused and the investigation has to be done by the 1st respondent police. But, even after three months, the investigation was not completed with any breakthrough. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9.However, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the petitioner will be examined once again and her statement would be recorded, if necessary and the investigation would be completed soon, and the charge sheet will be filed within a period of three months. Therefore, he would request the Court to grant three months time for filing the charge sheet. 10. No doubt, the 1st respondent police had not broke through with any clues. However, the chemical analysis report and other important evidence are necessary for continuing the investigation when the body of the deceased/husband of the petitioner was recovered in a highly decomposed condition and the postmortem was also done on the said body. Therefore, this Court cannot immediately find fault in the investigation done by the 1st respondent police and hence this Court is not inclined to transfer the investigation at this stage. However this Court is inclined to direct the 1st respondent police to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet within a time frame. 11.Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to complete the investigation within a period of two months from to day and to file the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew the present application for transfer of investigation, in the event that the 1st respondent has not filed the charge sheet within the time granted by this Court. 12.With the aforesaid direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District,Nagercoil. 3.The Inspector of Police, C.B.c.I.D.,Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. +1cc to Mr.N.Dilipkumar, Advocate Sr.No.2347 arul ssk/02.02.2011 /6c-3p/- Crl.O.P.(MD)No.215 of 2011 20.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/