← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/4175/2015disposed of

K.Kumar v. The Superintendent Of Police

2015-04-21Honourable Mr Justice M.M.Sundresh2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21/4/2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4175 of 2015 K.Kumar ...

Petitioner Vs

1. The State rep. By The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police O/o. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Saminathapuram Palani Dindigul District.

3. The Inspector of Police Saminathapuram Police Station Dindigul District.

4. The Inspector of Police CBCID Dindigul District.

...

Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer the investigation of Crime No.162 of 2014 on the file of the third respondent to fourth respondent to any other agency.

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Suthakaran For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed for a direction to transfer the investigation of Crime No.162 of 2014 on the file of the third respondent to fourth respondent to any other agency.

2. The petitioner is the father of the deceased. The deceased is said to have entered into a love marriage with one Raja. She was found dead on 25/8/2014 by hanging. On 26/8/2014, a case has been registered in Crime No.112 of 2014 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. It appears that based upon the Revenue Divisional Officer's report, the case has been subsequently altered on 27/8/2014 into offences under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. 3 (2) (v) of the S.C and S.R Act, 1989.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is a case of murder committed by the husband and in-laws of the deceased. No complaint has been given by them. It is the petitioner, who after coming to know about the death gave the complaint. The petitioner was made to sit in the Police Station for the whole day. Just prior to the death of the deceased, the petitioner received a phone call about the demand of dowry. As the final report has not been taken on file and in view of the doubtful circumstances, the investigation will have to be transferred to some other agency.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that there are certain injuries found on the body of the deceased. The mentioning of the record would show that the deceased would not have died https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

of hanging by her saree.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that investigation has been done in a proper way. Alteration of charges have been made only by the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Postmortem report also lend credence to the respondents and hence no interference is required.

7. It is seen that the Revenue Divisional Officer report also makes a specific reference about the father-in-law of the deceased. A perusal of the final report would show that he has not been arrayed as the accused. Further, the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer by itself cannot be a sole ground to frame charges to file the final report. There is no indication about the specific stand taken by the petitioner before the respondents about the demand of dowry.

8. Considering the above stated circumstances, this Court is inclined to transfer the investigation to some other agency. Accordingly, (**)the first respondent is directed to transfer the investigation from the file of the third respondent to any other Deputy Superintendent of Police under his Jurisdiction. The first respondent is also directed to supervise the investigation. It is made clear that the first respondent will make sure that neither the second respondent nor the third respondent shall have any role in the further investigation. The entire investigation shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

9. With the above said direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) (**)Corrected as per order of this Court dt.11.06.2015 in Crl.OP(MD).No.4175/2015 /True Copy/ Sub- Assistant Registrar To (To be substituted for the order already despatched on 14.03.2015)

1. The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police O/o. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Saminathapuram, Palani, Dindigul District.

3. The Inspector of Police Saminathapuram Police Station, Dindigul District.

4. The Inspector of Police CBCID ,Dindigul District.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to M/s.I.Suthakaran, Advocate in SR.No.20452 Sm:11.05.2015:2P/7C AA/07.07.2015/ 2p- 7c/(Corrected Order) mvs Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4175 of 2015 21/4/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/