1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1531 of 2011 V.Arumugam ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Commissioner of Police Tirunelveli District 2. The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Moontadaippu Police Station Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District 4. The Inspector of Police Moontadaippu Police Station Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District ... Respondents Crime NO. 54 of 2010 PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to transfer the investigation in Cr.No. 54 of 2010 dated 29.03.2010 pending on the file of the 4th respondent to 3rd respondent or any other investigation agency and to complete the investigation within the stipulated period. For Petitioner : Mr. R.Senthil Kumar For M/S. Jayapaul Associates For Respondents: Mrs.S.Devasena, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to transfer the investigation in Cr.No. 54 of 2010 dated 29.03.2010 pending on the file of the 4th respondent to 3rd respondent or any other investigation agency and to complete the investigation within the stipulated period. 2. Heard Mr.R.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Devasena, 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 has given a complaint to the fourth respondent, on 29.03.2010 and the case was registered in Crime No. 54 of 2010 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 354 and 4 of Woman Harassment Act, in that incident, all the accused have caused injuries and also pulled her down and tarred the blouse of the petitioner and she was put into great insult in the eyes of the villagers. He would further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 submit in his argument that after registering the said case, no enquiry has been conducted by the fourth respondent and it shows that he is biased over the petitioner and there is a likelihood of closing the case of the petitioner, since the accused is threatening the petitioner to go for a compromise otherwise he would murder the petitioner as well as his family members, within a period of one month. He would further submit in his argument that the stagnation of the investigation would go to show that the fourth respondent is not interested in proceeding with the case in order to render justice to the petitioner and therefore, it has to be transferred from the file of the fourth respondent to any other investigating agency. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in her argument that the incident took place, in which, a complaint was also given by the accused person against the relatives of the petitioner and the same was registered in Crime No. 53 of 2010 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC and both the crimes are pending with the fourth respondent for the purpose of investigation. She would further submit in her argument that it is admittedly a case in counter and therefore, the present case alone cannot be transferred from the file of the fourth respondent to any other investigating agency. Therefore, she would request the Court to dismiss the Petition and if any order is passed, the respondents are ready to obey the orders. 5. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. The fourth respondent police has registered a complaint given by the petitioner, on 29.03.2010, in Crime No. 54 of 2010 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 354 and 4 of Woman Harassment Act. According to the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the investigation is pending. It is also made known to the Court that yet another case has been registered in respect of the same incident, on the complaint given by the accused person in Crime No. 53 of 2010 against the relatives of the petitioner and the same is also pending and the cases are case in counter cases. Therefore, both the cases are to be investigated simultaneously and the police has to file the charge sheet. In the said circumstances, the accused persons are threatening the petitioner and his family members, due to the inaction of the fourth respondent. 7. In view of the apprehension and the case is of the nature that both the cases are to be investigated and charge sheet are to be filed simultaneously and they are pending for a longer period, it could be transferred to anyone of the other competent officer under the control of the first respondent. There is no reason or circumstances seen for the transfer of the investigating agency from the file of the respondent police, to any other independent agencies. 8. Therefore, I am of the view that the cases in Crime Nos. 54 & 53 of 2010 pending on the file of the fourth respondent are ordered to be investigated further by a competent officer other than the fourth respondent to be nominated by the second respondent police within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and to file charge sheet in both the cases within a period of one month. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. With the above said direction, this Petition is disposed of. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR vsg To 1. The Commissioner of Police Tirunelveli District 2. The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Moontadaippu Police Station Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District 4. The Inspector of Police Moontadaippu Police Station Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District 5. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai DM:2011:FEB:23: Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1531 of 2011 08.02.2011 3P:6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/