Keppan, v. The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.07.2017 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL OP(MD)No.9689 of 2017 Keppan : Petitioner Vs.

1. The State rep. by, The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Vellanur Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

Cr.96/2017

3. P.Ganesan

4. A.Marimuthu

5. Solaiammal : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the 1st respondent to transfer the investigation in Crime No.96 of 2017 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent to some other Investigating Officer other than the 2nd respondent and ensure the investigation to be conducted under the monitorization of the 1st respondent by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 11.07.2017. For Petitioner : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.K.Anbarasan (Crl.Side) Government Advocate.

***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to transfer the investigation in Crime No.96 of 2017 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent to some other Investigating Officer other than the 2nd respondent and ensure the investigation to be conducted under the monitorization of the 1st respondent by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 11.07.2017.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

3. On the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, a case was registered by the second respondent in Crime No. 96 of 2017, dated 27.06.2017 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C., The grievance of the petitioner is that he suffered serious injury on his head, as he was attacked with the Iron part of Shovel.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the case ought to have been registered under Sections 307 and 326 of I.P.C, and that therefore, the investigation is required to be transferred to some other Investigation Officer other than the second respondent to ensure fair investigation.

5. The learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) submitted that the incident occurred only on 24.06.2017 and the second respondent is yet to get Wound certificate. Only after considering the other evidence, statement of the witnesses and materials, like the Wound Certificate, the second respondent will be in a position to alter the provisions.

6. The statement of the learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appears to have substance. In this case, unless the Wound Certificate is available, it is not possible for the Investigation Officer to proceed further by altering the provisions which are attracted corresponding to the offences committed.

7. It is settled that the transfer of investigation can be considered only if there are genuine reasons and the apprehensions of the persons seeking transfer should be bona fide. In this case, no serious allegations against the second respondent is made and the only irregularity even according to the petitioner is the registration of the case under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C., instead of Sections 307 and 326 of I.P.C.

8. Hence, the Criminal Original petition is closed as it is not a fit case to transfer the investigation. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Vellanur Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

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

+1cc to Mr.RMS.Sethuraman, Advocate Sr.No.68036 PMU VB/GT/SAR4/09/08/2017/3P/5C CRL OP(MD)No.9689 of 2017 26.07.2017