IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.10.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM Criminal Original Petition No.10565 of 2008 L.Rajabathar ... Petitioner -Vs.- STATE by the Inspector of Police Pattinapakkam Police Station Pattinapakkam, Chennai ... Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to order reinvestigation of the case in Crime No.229 of 2002 on the file of the respondent herein. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayakumar For Respondent : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) - - - O R D E R The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking for a direction for reinvestigation of the case in Crime No.229 of 2002 on the file of the respondent. 2. The petitioner lodged a written complaint before the respondent on 12.03.2002 stating that his son L.R.Paranthaman had married one Nalini, D/o. Dakshinamurthy on 19.02.1999; they lived together for a short time and thereafter due to misunderstandings they got themselves separated and Nalini left for her parental home; thereafter she had filed a divorce petition in the Family Court and the said petition was pending; due to grief caused by the separation of his wife and due to the mental stress and due to the appearance in the Court his son appeared tired in the previous day and he was missing thereafter and on the morning of 12.03.2002 on information received that a dead body of a male was found near the sea-shore; he went and saw the body and identified the same as that of his son and on the aforesaid allegations he requested the respondent to conduct the enquiry and hand-over the body. 3. On the basis of the said complaint a case in Crime No.229 of 2002 had registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C.; investigation was taken up by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattinapakkam Police Station, Pattinapakkam, Chennai; The Sub-Inspector of Police went to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the scene of occurrence and inquest was conducted in the presence of the Panchayatdhars and witnesses and after the inquest, the dead body was sent to the Government Royapettah General Hospital, Chennai, for post-mortem and on the same day the following persons namely, the petitioner, his wife-Yamuna Devi, Jaganathan, Nalini, W/o-the deceased-L.R.Paranthaman, Vijayalakshmi-mother-in-law of the deceased, were examined and their statements recorded; on 04.04.2002 the Investigating Officer enquired the Doctor-R.Bhaskar who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body and recorded his statement; according to the opinion of the Doctor, who conducted the post- mortem, the deceased would appeared to have died of asphyxia due to drowning with insecticide (Carbonate) poisoning; accordingly the respondent submitted a final report on 15.04.2002 to the Tahsildar, Triplicane-Mylapore Taluk, Chennai – 28 and further action was dropped; since the materials collected during the course of investigation reveal that because of the pendency of the divorce case before the Family Court, Chennai, and family problem and the illness of the deceased he wanted to end his life and he himself decided to commit suicide. 4. In such circumstances, though on 27.03.2002 itself the petitioner had given a complaint to the respondent alleging that Nalini W/o.- the deceased-L.R.Paranthaman had engaged rowdy elements with the aid and advice of her mother-Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, abducted the petitioner’s son-L.R.Paranthaman on 11.03.2002 and he was done to death at Pattinapakkam, Chennai, no action was taken and hence the petitioner’s wife filed Crl.O.P.No.8635 of 2002 before this Court seeking for a direction to register a case, but the same was dismissed by an order dated 04.02.2008 on the basis of the representation made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that it was a case of accidental death. According to the petitioner the respondent has not conducted proper investigation and hence it is just and proper to order re-investigation by some other agency. 4. The respondent has filed a counter statement denying the various allegations contained in the petition and setting out in detail the various steps taken in the course of investigation. It is stated in the counter statement that the petitioner himself earlier filed Crl.O.P.No.12587 of 2007 seeking for a direction to register a case under Section 302 IPC on the basis of the complaint dated 27.03.2002 but the same was dismissed by an order dated 25.06.2007 as the petitioner was called absent continuously for several hearings but suppressing the same the above petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though in the complaint dated 12.03.2002 the petitioner had not made any allegations against his daughter-in-law and her mother and others, subsequently when he came to know about their involvement a complaint dated 27.03.2002 was given but the respondent had not taken any action on that complaint. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 174 (1) of the Cr.P.C., the respondent ought to have immediately given intimation to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold the inquest, but the respondent had not admittedly sent such intimation and therefore the investigation done by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent is vitiated. He further submitted that though as per the post-mortem certificate certain abrasions have been found on the dead-body of the deceased the respondent had not taken steps to ascertain the cause of such injuries and therefore submitted that reinvestigation should be ordered through some other agency. 6. Countering the said submissions the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent submitted that in the written complaint dated 12.03.2007 lodged by the petitioner not even a single allegation is found against his daughter-in-law or against her mother; not even anything is said regarding the strained relationship between his son and his wife and therefore submitted that the allegations contained in the subsequent complaint dated 27.03.2002 is only an after thought. He further submitted that though intimation was not sent by the respondent to the Executive Magistrate as per Section 174 (1) of the Cr.P.C., after following the other procedures contemplated therein and completing the investigation and after ascertaining the cause of death as suicide the final report was prepared and the same was submitted to the Tahsildar, Triplicane- Mylapore Taluk and as such the provisions contained in Section 174 Cr.P.C., have been substantially complied with and therefore there is absolutely no necessity for ordering re-investigation by any other agency. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 8. As stated above the petitioner’s wife had earlier filed Crl.O.P.No.8635 of 2002 before this Court and the same came to be dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 04.02.2003 by observing as under:- “2. ... The learned Additional Public Prosecutor reports that a case has been registered and investigated and it turned out to be a case of accidental death. Therefore, nothing survives in the prayer asked for by the petitioner. Petition stands dismissed”. Thereafter the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.12587 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 25.06.2007 by observing as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner called absent continuously for several hearings. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative except to dismiss this criminal original petition. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed for non-prosecution”. But unfortunately the filing and dismissal of Crl.O.P.No.12587 of 2007 has not been mentioned in the present petition. 9. It has to be pointed out that when Crl.O.P.No.8635 of 2002 came up for hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has reported that a case was registered and investigated and it turned out to be a case of accidental death, the petitioner could have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sought for the relief that is sought for in the above petition but the petitioner had failed to do so. It has to be further pointed out that as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) in the complaint dated 12.03.2002 the petitioner has not stated that there was misunderstandings between his son and his wife and it has also not been stated that his daughter-in-law in connivence with her mother engaged rowdy elements to do away with the petitioner’s son. Only on the subsequent complaint on 27.03.2002 such allegations have been made. 10. As stated in the counter statement filed by the respondent none of the witnesses examined during the inquest nor the petitioner or his wife had stated in their statements about the said allegations now sought to be made against the petitioner’s daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law. The Doctor, who conducted post-morterm, had opined that the accused would appeared to have died of asphyxia due to drowning with insecticide (Carbonate) poisoning. Only on the basis of the statement of witnesses examined and the opinion of the Doctor, the respondent has come to the conclusion that it is a case of accidental death and the final report has also been submitted to the Tahsildar, Triplicane-Mylapore Taluk. 11. The failure on the part of the respondent to send intimation to the Executive Magistrate as contemplated under Section 174 (1) Cr.P.C., will not vitiate the investigation. After completing the investigation and ascertaining the cause for death the final report had been sent to the Executive Magistrate as stated above, which in the considered view of this Court, substantially satisfies the requirements of Section 174 (1) of the Cr.P.C., This Court does not find any serious lapse in the investigation conducted by the respondent and finds absolutely no reason to order re-investigation by any other agency. Hence the above Criminal Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. Srk To 1. The Inspector of Police, Pattinapakkam Police Station, Pattinapakkam, Chennai 2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 104 + 1 CC To Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate SR NO.57056 Pre-Delivery Order in Crl.O.P.No.10565 of 2008 SSK {CO} TP/21.10.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/