1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1051 of 2011 V.Saroja ... Petitioner Vs. State by 1. The Superintendent of Police Trichy 2. The Inspector of police Thioruverumbur Police Station Trichy 3. The Inspector of Police CBCID Wing Trichy ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to transfer the investigation in Crime No. 579 of 2010 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station, Trichy – the 2nd respondent herein to the Inspector of Police, CBCID Wing, Trichy – the 3rd respondent herein. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh For Respondents : Mr. L.Murugan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to transfer the investigation in Crime No. 579 of 2010 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station, Trichy – the 2nd respondent herein to the Inspector of Police, CBCID Wing, Trichy – the 3rd respondent herein. 2. Heard Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the prosecution reads as follows: The petitioner had completed beautician Course and running a Beauty Parlour and her husband is working in abroad. On 13.01.2010, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 she went to Delhi, some culprits have entered into the house and stolen the gold worth about Rs.3/- lakhs. On 14.01,2010 the neighbour of the petitioner, namely, one Mukilan noticed the theft and immediately informed the petitioner and the same was informed to the brother of the petitioner, namely, one Rajagopal. He preferred a complaint before the second respondent on 24.01.2010, but, no action has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the first respondent, who promised her to complete the same within a period of two months and for that, a receipt has also been issued by him, on 15.03.2010. After the assured period also, the second respondent has not taken any action to nab the culprits and also to recover the stolen articles. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that due to the above said circumstances, the petitioner sent a Petition under the Right to Information Act, on 13.11.2010 and after receiving the same, the second respondent belatedly registered an FIR on 20.11.2010 in Crime No. 579 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. He would further submit in his argument that the second respondent is threatening the petitioner that her complaint would be closed as 'Mistake of fact or law' and therefore, the petitioner lost her confidence with the second respondent. Hence, he would request the Court that suitable orders may be passed to transfer the case. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit in his argument that the delay has been caused due to the attitidue of the petitioner only and the second respondent has conducted a search at the occrrence place and a case has been registered in Crime No. 579 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC., and the investigation is being carried on promptly. He would further submit in his argument that the investigation is offing and there is no mala fide on the part of the respondent and therefore, the claim of the petitioner has to be dismissed. 6. I have paid anxious considerations to the arguments advanced on either side. 7. It is no doubt true that the brother of the petitioner has preferred a complaint before the second respondent, on 24.01.2010, but, no action has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the first respondent, who promised her to complete the investigation within a period of two months and for that, a receipt was also issued, on 15.03.2010. Even after the assured period also, the second respondent has not taken any action to nab the culprits nor to recover the stolen articles. The petitioner sent a Petition under the Right to Information Act, on 13.11.2010 and after receiving the same, the second respondent belatedly registered an FIR on 20.11.2010 in Crime No. 579 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. Admittedly, the investigation is pending. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the investigation is proceeding promptly and there is no mala fide shown https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 on the part of the second respondent. Considering the date of occurrence, registration of the case and also the investigation done by the second respondent, this Court could see that there is no reason for the investigation be transferred from the file of the second respondent to the file of the third respondent. However, this Court is inclined to pass the following direction: Within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, let the petitioner shall appear before first respondent and air her grievance, whereupon the first respondent, shall call for the file and issue suitable direction to the Investigating Officer concerned and also to monitor the investigation. 8. This Court is also inclined to direct the Inspector of Police, Lalgudi, to do the investigation for the recovery of the articles and to produce them in accordance with law after enquiring the accused persons and to complete the investigation and to file the charge sheet as expeditiously as possible. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the Petition is disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police, Lalgudi 2. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy 3. The Inspector of police Thiruverumbur Police Station Trichy 4. The Inspector of Police CBCID Wing, Trichy 5. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1 CC to Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh, Advocate (SR.No.4619) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1051 of 2011 04.02.2011 vsg NSV/14.2.11/3P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/