1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.973 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 D.Alagumalai ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretray to Government Home Department Chennai 2. The Director General of Police Office of the Director General of Police Chennai 3. The Inspector General of Police Office of the Inspector General of Police South Zone Madurai 4. The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Madurai City 5. The Inspector of Police (L & O) South Gate Police Station Madurai City 6. The Inspector of Police CBCID Wing Madurai City ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the first respondent to withdraw the investigation offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 326, 329, 337, 338, read with 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No. 61 of 2011 on the file of the fifth respondent and entrust the same to the file of the sixth respondent with a direction to investigation and the same to file the final report as against the culprit viz., Special S.I. Mohan and constable Ayyanar in accordance with law. *** For Petitioner : Mr.R.Udhayakumar For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to withdraw the investigation in Crime No. 61 of 2011 pending on the file of the fifth respondent , registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 326, 329, 337, 338, read with 506(ii) of IPC, to the file of the sixth respondent and for issuing further direction. 2. Heard Mr.R.Udhayakumar, 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 the petitioner was attacked by two unnamed, but identifiable persons, on 22.10.2010, at about 9.30 p.m., near the South Gate police station and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, inner injuries and eye injuries. He would further submit in his argument that when the petitioner went to the fifth respondent police station to give a complaint, he could see the persons, who attacked the petitioner as the Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Mohan and constable Ayyanar of the said station and when the petitioner was giving complaint, they threatened the petitioner and collected money of a sum of Rs.350/- and released the petitioner from the police station. He would also submit that the petitioner preferred a complaint, on 24.10.2010, through post and the said complaint was returned for insufficient address and subsequent complaint sent by the petitioner was received, on 28.10.2010. He would also submit that there was no action on the complaint and the petitioner has preferred a representation before the third and fourth respondents and since no action, he has filed a Petition in Crl.O.P.(MD). No. 13896 of 2010, directing the police to register the complaint and the complaint was ordered to be registered with usual directions and accordingly, he has presented the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and accordingly, a case has been registered and it is kept pending without any improvement. He would also submit tha the accused persons, namely, the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.V.Mohan and constable Ayyanar are attached to the fifth respondent police and therefore, the investigation done by the fifth respondent police will not depict the true facts through investigation and the fifth respondent police rejected the statement given by the petitioner and had colluded with the said accused persons and no arrest has been made so far. He would further submit that the petitioner was also threatened by un-identified 10 persons demanding withdrawal of the criminal case. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would request the Court that the investigation be transferred to any of the independent agency, like, CBCID and to pass suitable orders. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that merely because the accused are working in the fifth respondent police station, it cannot be said that the fifth respondent police would collude with the accused persons and had left the statements given by the petitioner unattended. He would also submit that the investigation is offing and there is no necessity for the transfer of investigation to the sixth respondent police. He would also submit that the criminality of the accused persons can be concluded only at the end https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 of the investigation and it cannot be decided at the very early stage of the investigation and therefore, the suspicion of the petitioner is not at all germane and there is no necessity of transferring the investigation from the file of the fifth respondent to the sixth respondent. The allegations putforth by the petitioner would not show any mala fide on the part of the fifth respondent and on that score itself, the petition is not sustainable and the petition may be dismissed. 5. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. The petitioner has given a complaint after getting so many orders from the hands of this Court to register the complaint and the said complaint was registered in Crime No. 61 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 326, 329, 337, 338, read with 506(ii) of IPC, and it is pending investigation. The grievance of the petitioner is that his statement was not accepted by the fifth respondent police, since the accused persons are working under the fifth respondent police Station and therefore, there would be a collusion as suspected by him. However, the learned Government Advocate would state that there is no collusion and the case of the complainant will be investigated without any bias or partiality. I could see that the investigation is still pending and the evidence of the petitioner has not yet been collected so far and other witnesses have also not been examined. 7. No doubt a suspicion accrued in the mind of the petitioner that the fifth respondent may sail with the accused, who are admittedly working as Sub Inspector of Police and Constable in the same police station. The sluggishness of the investigation would also make it clear that such suspicion of the petitioner is a bona fide one. However, the in action on the part of the fifth respondent police is not sufficient to transfer any case from its file to any other independent agency since, the accused persons are working in the same police station. However, the investigation can be transferred from the file of the fifth respondent police to remove the suspicion in the mind of the petitioner. Therefore, I could consider the transfer of investigation from the file of the fifth respondent police to any other competent officer under the control of the fourth respondent police. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to pass an order of transfer of investigation from the file of the fifth respondent to the file of a competent officer under the control of the fourth respondent police for continuing the investigation and to file charge sheet as expeditiously as possible. The transfer of investigation shall be done within one week, by the fourth respondent, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Home Department, Chennai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 2. The Director General of Police Office of the Director General of Police, Chennai 3. The Inspector General of Police Office of the Inspector General of Police South Zone, Madurai 4. The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City 5. The Inspector of Police (L & O) South Gate Police Station, Madurai City 6. The Inspector of Police, CBCID Wing, Madurai City 7. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court Madurai Crl.O.P.(MD).No.973 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 07.02.2011 vsg PAM 21.02.2011/8C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/