IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.18489 of 2007 Arumugam .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore District. (Crime No.141/07) 2. The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District. Coimbatore. .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to order to transfer the investigation of the case in Crime No.141 of 2007 on the file of the respondent to the CB-CID police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Duraisamy For Respondents : Mr. R.Muniappa raj Government Advocate O R D E R The above petition has been filed by the petitioner for direction to transfer the investigation of the case in Crime No.141 of 2007 on the file of the respondent to the CB-CID police. 2. The respondent police have registered a case on a complaint given by the complainant, Mohana in Cr.No.141 of 2007 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner submits that he is the father of deceased Manjula aged about 22 years. His daughter was working as an Assistant Nurse in a private hospital at Coimbatore. She visited her native place and returned to Coimbatore on 17.02.2007. The petitioner submits that one Sundararajan is a native of Saththarasanpatti, Kallal Police Station limits and the petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ daughter Manjula is his classmate. The said Sundararajan is also working in a private company at Coimbatore and the petitioner's daughter is only a friend of the said Sundararajan. On 28.02.2007, the petitioner was called by the 1st respondent and informed that his daughter was found dead. 4. As per the F.I.R, one Mohana has given a complaint to the respondent police on 28.02.2007 stating that her neighbour Chitra brought the said Manjula (now deceased) and introduced her as if she was married to the said Sundararajan who is working in the said Chitra's company for the past 5 years and requested the complainant to rent a house for them. The Complainant, Mohana arranged a house for them. On 23.02.2007, the said Manjula and Sundararajan started to reside in the house. On 28.02.2007, at about 3 P.M, when the complainant went to the house of Manjula to inform her about commencement of supply of tap water, she found the said Manjula dead. The complainant then searched for the Sundararajan and found him sitting outside the compound wall. On enquiring him, the said Sundararajan stated that when he awoke at 2 A.M on 27.02.2007, he saw that the said Manjula was hanging from the roof by using her chudithar salvai and that he had removed her body and kept it on the pail. Hence, the complaint was given by Mohana & the same had been registered as a case in Cr.No.141 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Further, a suicide note alleged to have been written by the now deceased Manjula was found next to her body, wherein it had been stated that no one is responsible for her death. 5. The petitioner contends that after registering the case, no investigation was conducted by the 1st respondent and the matter was also not referred to the Revenue Divisional Office for further investigation. The petitioner also submits that this is not a case of suicide but a case of murder and that he strongly suspects the said Sundararajan to have committed the murder, on the following grounds. 1) There are no facilities in the room or roof to hang herself. 2) As per the FIR, the said Sundararajan removed her body after she was found hanging but he had not informed the police or the neighbours, immediately and it is only the neighbour who had informed the police. 3) The petitioner also has alleged that the suicide note said to have been written by the deceased was not written by the deceased and that the handwriting of the deceased is completely different from other writings of the deceased. The petitioner has further alleged that even though the specimen writings of the deceased were submitted to the police, no comparison was made by the police as they wanted to close the case as suicide. Further, the petitioner has also given a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complaint to the respondents on 01.03.2007 but no action has been taken by them. Hence, the petitioner has alleged that it is a clear case of murder and only because the 1st respondent wanted to save the said Sundararajan, he had closed the case as suicide. Therefore, the petitioner prays for transfer of investigation of the case in Crime No.141 of 2007 on the file of 1st respondent to the CB-CID police. Supporting his case, the petitioner has filed 2 documents viz F.I.R in Cr.No.141 of 2007 and the complaint given by the petitioner on 01.03.2007. 6. The respondent, the Inspector of police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore has given a counter in which he states that a case in Sulur Police Station Crime No.141/2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C was registered by the head constable, Tr.V.Palanizandi, HC 713 on 28.02.2007 based on the complaint given by one Mohana. The respondent further submits that on 28.02.2007, he had gone to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation Mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of the witnesses. Photographs of the body of deceased in the scene were also taken. He had conducted enquiry with Mohana, the complainant herein, Chitra, neighbour of the house of the deceased and Soundararajan, friend of the deceased and recorded their statements. Subsequently, the body was sent for preservation to the mortuary at C.M.C hospital. Further, he had conducted an inquest on the dead body of the deceased at C.M.C hospital, Coimbatore on 01.03.2007 in the presence of witnesses. Further, on 01.03.2007, he had enquired the parents of the deceased and recorded their statements. In their statements, the parents of the deceased have only told that the said Sundararajan is a classmate and friend of the deceased. 7. The respondent further submits that one Dr.K.Kolanthaivelu, attached to the C.M.C hospital conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate. Then the viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. After obtaining the chemical analysis report from the forensic science laboratory, Coimbatore, the said doctor has given his opinion that "deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to hanging". 8. The respondent further submits that the matter was not referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer as the deceased was not a married women. After completing the investigation, the respondent has forwarded the final report to the Tahsildar, Palladam and the case was referred as " further action dropped". 9. Hence the respondent contends that as the investigation has been done in a proper and fair manner in accordance with law, it is not necessary at this stage to transfer the investigation to CB-CID. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. Considering the contents of the petition as well as the counter statement of the 1st respondent and arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for their respective sides, the Court is of the view that the 1st respondent/Inspector of Police has done his duty promptly. The Court is unable to find any discrepancies on the respondent police. 11. Under the circumstances, the Criminal O.P.No.18489 of 2007 is dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mra To 1. The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District. Coimbatore. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Crl.O.P.No.18489 of 2007 BK (CO) RH (30.10.09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/