1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:13.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition (MD)No.15709 of 2011 T.Samraj :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The State through The Sub Inspector of Police, Palavoor Police Station,Tirunelveli District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli. :Respondents PRAYER:This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to pass a direction to change the investigation agency from the hands of the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent in respect of the crime No.188 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Maheswaran For Respondents:Mr.P.Kannithevan,Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This petition has been filed to pass a direction to change the investigation agency from the hands of the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent in respect of the crime No.188 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent. 2.Heard Mr.R.Maheswaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned counsel appearing for 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.188 of 2011 before the 1st respondent police and it is being investigated in a lethargic manner and there is no break through has been obtained and they are not interested in doing further investigation and for doing effective investigation. He would further submit that even after the dismissal of the bail applications, the accused persons have not been arrested by the respondent police and let it to be transferred to the file of the 3rd respondent police. 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 2nd respondent. 4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the investigation is being carried https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 on by the 1st respondent police in a fair manner and without any partiality, the investigation is being carried on and they are ready to instruct the 2nd respondent, the Superintendent of Police, to monitor the investigation processed under the 1st respondent. 5.Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the case has been registered in crime No.188 of 2011 and it is being investigated by the 1st respondent police, however, the petitioner has lost faith with the investigation of the 1st respondent. 6.Considering the said circumstances, I could see that the investigation is offing and if for any reason, the investigation is transferred from 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent, there is a possibility of delay and the 3rd respondent is also coming under the supervision of the 2nd respondent in the district and it has become necessary, not to order the transfer of the said investigation to the 3rd respondent and at the same time, the rights of the petitioner has to be protected. 7.In such circumstances, I could direct the 2nd respondent viz., the Superintendent of police, to monitor and issue suitable directions to the 1st respondent police, to do the investigation effectively to the hope of the petitioner and to complete the investigation in a short span of time in a fair manner. 8.With the aforesaid direction, this petition is ordered. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar TO: 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Palavoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Arul Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15709 of 2011 RP/30.12.2011/2P/5C. 13.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/