Malliga v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 23/02/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI Malliga ... Petitioner /Defacto Complainant Vs 1.The State represented by The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.587 of 2025) 4.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents / Complainant PRAYER :- To direct the first respondent to transfer the investigation in Crime No. 587 of 2025 on the file of the third respondent to the fourth respondent or any other competent investigation agency or to complete the investigation.
1/5
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susikumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to direct the first respondent to transfer the investigation in Crime No.587 of 2025 on the file of the third respondent to the fourth respondent or any other competent investigation agency or to complete the investigation.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the de facto complainant on whose instance Crime No.587 of 2025 was registered, for the offences under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS, 2023 with respect to the accidental death of the petitioner's husband. However, there is no progress in the investigation, hence this writ petition.
3. Learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that as per the complaint of the petitioner, on the date of occurrence, the petitioner's husband namely Naveen along with one Samuel, drove the vehicle and 2/5
dashed against a car and the petitioner's husband died. The pillion rider Samuel has given a statement that due to the negligent driving of the petitioner's husband, the accident had happened. The sections were also altered to 304(A) of IPC against the petitioner's husband.
4. Heard either sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. Though the learned Government Advocate submitted that it is only at the due to the mistake of the deceased the accident had happened, the petitioner's plight is different that the driver of the other car which dashed against the petitioner's husband is the cause for the accident. In this regard, the third responder police is directed to investigate. The third respondent is directed to look into the availability of any CCTV in that vicinity and to monitor the road in which the accident had happened and find out the truth. The first respondent is directed to monitor the progress of the investigation and the third respondent is directed to appraise the progress to the first respondent on every Friday. 3/5
6. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
23.02.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No pnn To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
L. VICTORIA GOWRI,J pnn
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.3748 of 2026 Date : 23/02/2026 5/5