IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07 .08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.35320 of 2007 G. Muthu .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Inspector of Police, B-1, Siva Kanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to issue the direction to transfer the case in Crime No.1179/2004 from the 2nd respondent CBCID, Kancheepuram to the independent agency, namely, CBI and direct to reinvestigate the matter along with the petitioner's complaint dated 05.08.2004 and file the final report within a stipulated period and initiate necessary action. For Petitioner : M/s.S.Parthasarathy For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER
The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to issue direction to transfer the case in Crime No.1179/2004 from the 2nd respondent CBCID, Kancheepuram to the independent agency, namely, CBI and direct to reinvestigate the matter along with the petitioner’s complaint dated 05.08.2004 and file the final report within a stipulated period.
2. The petitioner has filed an Affidavit in support of his case stating that his sister, one M.Jaya was living peacefully with her husband till 04.08.2004. The petitioner’s sister’s husband G.Muthu, had money transaction with Krishta, Wife of Babu, who is living at Tirupanthiyur Village, Thiruvallur Taluk. In the said transaction, there was dispute between them. In the said transaction, one Jayaraman assisted the said Muthu. All of them proceeded to Kancheepuram to discuss regarding the money transaction. They booked a room in a Hotel at Kancheepuram on 04.08.2004 at 12.00 Noon. On the very same day, the 1st respondent informed Muthu’s relatives that Muthu died and that his body was at the hospital.
3. The 1st respondent registered a case on the complainant given by the Lodge Owner under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. On noticing the dead body, it was found that there are serious injuries all over the body. The petitioner, then, lodged a complaint with the respondent police against Mrs.Krishta and Jayaraman. There were knife cut injuries also on the dead body. So, it was a murder. Further, Muthu’s brother received an anonymous letter on 06.12.2004 and the said letter revealed that Muthu was murdered. The letter was also produced to the respondent for investigation. In order to protect the said Krishta and Jayaraman, the respondent has not proceeded further with the case. The petitioner further states that it was a pre-planned murder of the said Muthu.
4. The petitioner filed Criminal Original Petition No.39365 of 2004 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, before this Honourable Court. This Court was pleaded to allow the Criminal Original Petition on 25.02.2005 and transferred the case to DSP, CBCID, Kancheepuram, who was directed to file final report. The final report has also been filed. The 2nd respondent is also following the same view as the 1st respondent. The case was not altered from 174 of Cr.P.C to 302 of IPC. Hence, the petitioner has lost confidence on the 2nd respondent. Further, the petitioner submitted that the accused persons have a strong political influence and that the 1st respondent is also involved in said murder case. As such, the petitioner cannot get justice from Tamil Nadu State Police. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to file Criminal Original Petition for the direction to transfer the investigating agency from the 2nd respondent to an independent agency CBI to reinvestigate the case and file the final report within the stipulated period.
5. Supporting the case, the petitioner has filed FIR Copy, Complaint, letter, Order of this Honourable Court, etc.
6. The respondent filed a counter statement stating that after transfer of the case to CBCID in Crime No.1179 of 2004 and examining all witnesses, including Medical Officers and obtaining the Medical Report as to the cause of death of the deceased, there is no direct evidence or circumstantial evidence to establish the case of “murder” of the deceased. The medical evidence is absolutely lacking. It is an admitted fact that the deceased booked a room and stayed in a lodge at Kancheepuram.
7. The respondent further stated that the Room Boy, one Murugan, supplied food and Alcohol, a number of times, to the deceased and Krishta. After sometime, the room boy knocked the door, the said Krishta opened the door in a drunken mood and she tried to wake Muthu, who did not respond. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the hospital. The medical report and postmortem done on the body revealed that the deceased had died due to consumption of ‘insecticide’. Further, the respondents predecessor conducted the investigation in all aspects without giving any lacunae. So the death of the deceased is only due to consumption of ‘insecticide’ voluntarily. Neither Krishta nor Jayaraman were responsible for the death of the deceased. The respondent also scrutinised the entire case diary and the report of the medical officers thoroughly and found that dropping action in this case is factually and legally correct.
8. Considering the contentions of the petitioner and Counter statements of the respondents, and arguments advanced by the Learned Counsels for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, the Court is of the view that the petitioner had approached this honourable Court on an earlier occasion in Criminal Original Petition No.39365 of 2005 for the same occurrence and for the same relief. That was ordered by this Court. On the basis of this Honourable Court Order, the 2nd respondent herein conducted enquiry independently; and filed his detailed counter. In the act of the 2nd respondent who acted on the basis of this Honourable Court Order passed in Criminal Original Petition No.39365 of 2004 dated 25.02.2005, the Court does not find any irregularities. Hence, the Court declines to allow the prayer of the petitioner in Criminal Original Petition No.35320 of 2007. This petition has got to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
mps/mra
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
B-1, Siva Kanchi Police Station,
Kancheepuram Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBCID, Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Madras 104