A.Sirajudeen v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.09.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR A.Sirajudeen ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvadanai, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, CBCID, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Thondi, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.148 of 2024) ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the first respondent to transfer the investigation of the complaint 1/6

in F.I.R.No.148 of 2024, dated 01.07.2024 on the file of the fourth respondent to some other agencies and to investigate further and file final report based on the petitioner's complaint dated 27.08.2024, within the period as stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Kalantar Aasik Ahamadu For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate(Crl.side)

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking orders to direct the first respondent to transfer the investigation of the complaint in F.I.R.No.148 of 2024, dated 01.07.2024 on the file of the fourth respondent to some other agencies and to investigate further and file final report based on the petitioner's complaint dated 27.08.2024, within a time frame.

2.It is seen from the records that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner FIR in Cr.No.148 of 2024 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against unknown 2/6

persons. It is not in dispute that subsequently, the prosecution has found the miscreants involved in the incident and they have arrested said persons and recorded their confession.

3.The main contention of the petitioner is that at the time of occurrence, three persons were moving in the two wheeler and that though the petitioner has given CCTV footages, the fourth respondent failed to investigate them.

4.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the fourth respondent has filed an elaborate status report. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondents would submit that after receiving CCTV footage, they have conducted enquiry, that they have identified the persons, who travelled in the two wheeler and they have also collected CDR report of the above said persons, and that they have found that they are not the persons involved in the occurrence. He would further submit that they have examined the witnesses and are awaiting for chemical analysis report.

3/6

5.Considering the above, the petitioner has not shown any other reason or ground to transfer the investigation. Since the investigation is almost completed, the fourth respondent is directed to proceed with the investigation and file the final report, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the second respondent is directed to monitor the investigation.

6.With the above directions, this criminal original petition is disposed of.

20.09.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gns 4/6

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvadanai, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, CBCID, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Thondi, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

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

5/6

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

gns 20.09.2024 6/6