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.1377 of 2011 A.P.Sundari ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch,Madurai (Crime No.31/2010) 2. The Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D. Madurai 3. The Superintendent of Police Madurai ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to transfer the investigation in Crime No. 31 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent to second respondent and file the final report within the stipulated period. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Velavadhas For Respondents : Mrs.S.Devasena Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to transfer the investigation in Crime No. 31 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent to second respondent and file the final report within the stipulated period. 2. Heard Mr.H.Velavadhas, 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 that the petitioner is the head of the "AT.Arasu Women Self Help Goup" and one Chinnathambi and others approached the petitioner and arranged the subsidy loan for backward community and scheduled caste community through the District Collector, Madurai. He would further submit in his argument that she conducted the women self help group meeting to collect the amount by giving false promise and collected Rs.10,000/- from each of the 30 members, on 12.01.2010 and thereafter, the accused has not taken any steps to get the loan to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Y.Othakadi Police Station, on 28.07.2010 and the Inspector of police called the accused and enquired the matter, but, the accused did not answer properly. Again, the petitioner has given a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai and the same was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch. He would also submit in his argument that the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted the enquiry against the accused and in that enquiry, the second accused, namely, R.Sakthivel, gave a promise and also a statement, accepting the above said cheating that he was ready to settle the matter and want time. He would also submit in his argument that the first respondent registered a case in Crime No. 31 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of 2010, on 27.09.2010, under Sections 120(b), 406 and 420 of IPC and in the meantime, the accused approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail, which was dismissed, on 11.01.2011. He would also submit that no action was taken by the respondent police to investigate the matter thereafter. Hence, he would request the Court to transfer the investigation from the file of the first respondent to the file of the second respondent and to file a final report within the stipulated time. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents would submit in her argument that the first accused was arrested and the other co-accused, namely, A-2 is yet to be arrested and the investigation is being carried on by the first respondent. She would also submit in her argument that suitable steps will be taken up for the arrest of the second respondent and to complete the investigation within a short span of time. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the investigation is being carried out by the first respondent police and A-1 was arrested and the co-accused, namely, A-2 is yet to be arrested. The allegation made in the Petition as well as the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner do not impute any mala fide on the part of the investigation done by the first respondent. An assurance was given by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the investigation will be expeditiously conducted and it can be considered. Therefore, it is better to grant four months time to complete the investigation. 7. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to direct the first respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No. 31 of 2010 and to file the final report within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation and the investigation is not completed within the stipulated time, he is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this Petition is disposed of. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch,Madurai 2. The Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D. Madurai, 3. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai vsg SR : 22.02.2011 : 2p/5c Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1377 of 2011 03.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/