M. Ramalakshmi v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.08.2025 CORAM :
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI M. Ramalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep.By, The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Perunazhi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
Cr.No.31/2025.
...Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to directing the 1st respondent to transfer the investigation in Cr.NO. 31/2025 from the file of the 3rd respondent /Perunazhi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District to some other independent investigation agency.
1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.Dinesh. T, For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
The petitioner/defacto complainant in Crime No.31 of 2025 has filed this petition, seeking transfer of investigation of the above case, from the file of the respondent police to some other investigation agency. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the occurrence was taken place on 19.05.2025, the respondent police has not registered the case and therefore, this petitioner has filed a writ petition in WP.Crl.(MD) No.136 of 2025, wherein, this Court has issued certain directions, based on which, the case has been registered on 12.07.2025. According to the petitioner, the respondent police has not included the offence under Sections 351(3) and 296(b) of BNS. Therefore, the learned counsel apprehending that the respondent police may not conduct the investigation in a proper manner, seeks a direction to transfer the investigation from the file of the respondent police to any other competent investigating agency.
2/6
3.Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who takes notice for the respondents submits that the case has been registered only on 12.07.2025. They would alter the offence, if it requires, based on the statements recorded during the course of investigation. Now, it is very premature to make allegations as against the respondent police.
4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
5.The grievance of the petitioner is that though a case in Crime No.31 of 2025 has been registered, on her complaint, the respondent police has not included the offence under Sections 351(3) and 296(b) of BNS and therefore, the petitioner apprehends that the investigation may not be conducted in a proper manner. The respondent police claims that, they have registered the First Information Report alone and they would conduct the further investigation and during the course of investigation, if they find out that any other offence is made out, they would file the alteration report accordingly. 3/6
6.Since the investigation is in the initial stage, this Court is not finding fault with the respondent police. At the same time, this Court directs the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi/the second respondent, to monitor the investigation in Crime No.31 of 2025. With the hope that the respondent police would conduct the investigation in a fair and proper manner, this Criminal Original petition is closed. 07.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn 4/6
To 1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Perunazhi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
5/6
B.PUGALENDHI,J vrn Order made in 07.08.2025 6/6