Rajenderan v. The Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 22.12.2023 Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN T.Rajenderan.
... Petitioner /versus/
1. The Superintendent of Police, Officer of the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Officer of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Soolagiri Police Station, Soolagiri, Krishnagiri District.
4. Gajendran, S/o.Munusamy.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to conduct proper enquiry and investigate into the untimely death of the petitioner daughter Mrs.Pushpa on 03.12.2023 pursuant to the FIR in Crime No.736 of 2023 under the supervision of the 1st respondent and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to alter the charge based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.12.2023, within a Page No.1/4
time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vasanthanayagan For R1 to R3 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam.
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to conduct proper enquiry and investigate into the untimely death of the petitioner daughter Mrs.Pushpa on 03.12.2023, pursuant to the FIR in Crime No.736 of 2023, under the supervision of the 1st respondent and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to alter the charge based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.12.2023.
2. Suspecting the instant death to Pushpa who got caught in the rotator of tractor while her husband was ploughing the field. The father has given complaint about the unnatural death. The respondent police is investigating the case. The father suspects foul play and doubt that it might have been caused by his son-in-law i.e., husband of Pushpa intentionally. Page No.2/4
3. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 1 to 3 states that, so far investigation and statements recorded from the witnesses and the examination of SOC does not indicate any suspicion about the accidental death of Pushpa. However, if there is any incriminating material in the course of investigation is collected, then necessary alteration report will be done.
4. This Court, on perusing the rough sketch, complaint and other statements is of the view that the investigation so far going on the right direction, however to prevent any vital omission of evidence during the investigation regarding the death of Pushpa, the 1st respondent/Superintendent of Police, shall monitor the investigation and see that investigation proceeds in proper direction.
5. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
22.12.2023 Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order bsm Page No.3/4
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
bsm Copy to:-
1. The Superintendent of Police, Officer of the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Officer of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Soolagiri Police Station, Soolagiri, Krishnagiri District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 22.12.2023 Page No.4/4