BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13/11/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.8644 of 2008 K.Chinna Pappa ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State rep. by the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent Office, Trichy District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatty Police Station, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to register the FIR on the petitioner's complaint dated 06.09.2008 and investigate the matter. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Balamurugan ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate.
2. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of this writ petition would run thus:
The petitioner before this Court is the pathetic mother of the deceased
and she would entreat and implore that her son was brutally murdered by his wife
and her paramour and her son was burnt and the dead body was thereby
obliterated; her complaint with the police evoked no positive response; whereas
the police quite contrary to the realities and truth simply registered the First
Information Report as though the deceased’s wife and her paramour secreted the
dead body and burnt it without informing the authorities and as such invoked
only Section 176 I.P.C.; her incessant requests and prayers to the higher
officials also evoked no positive response. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The learned Government Advocate by producing the case diary would
develop his arguments to the effect that now then the police investigated into
the crime and found out that it is not a case of murder but the deceased’s wife
and one Thangaraj without informing the authorities burnt the dead body and they
obliterated it and in that the police also prepared the charge sheet by invoking
Section 176 as well as 201 I.P.C.; however the Court returned it and that the
matter stands there.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would echo the cri de coeur of
the pathetic mother of the deceased to the effect that this is a case of murder
and it should not simply be allowed to be hushed up by the police and nothing
short of CBCID probe into the matter would bring out the truth. He also would
highlight the fact that the petitioner. being a poor lady, cannot resort to the
facility of filing private complaint and get it processed.
5. As such in this factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that the
higher police officials should necessarily look into it and the matter cannot
simply be left to be dealt with at the level of the Inspector of Police only. I
am fully aware of the fact that the CBCID cannot be burdened with lot of matters
and that would naturally brought down the efficiency of the CBCID also in
investigating into the matters.
6. The learned Government Advocate would submit that CBCID cannot be
burdened with all cases. Hence, by way of striking a balance between the two,
at the first instance, I would like to pass the following direction:
The Superintendent of Police concerned shall call for the case diary and
after giving due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner consider the
matter as to whether so far the case has been properly investigated.
Furthermore, the Superintendent of Police also shall hear the witnesses, whom
the petitioner might cite as eye witnesses, thereupon the investigation may be
entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned and whatever further
steps are required, the same shall be done.
7. It is obvious and axiomatic that the penal provisions in the First
Information Report could be altered and the accused arrayed could be changed
depending upon the truth that transpires from the deep probe. Once again I
would reiterate without being tautologous that the petitioner being the mother
of the deceased, is having serious allegations, it may be given due weightage
and accordingly the matter may be processed.
8. With the above directions and observations, this Writ Petition is
disposed of. No costs.
smn/dp
To
1.The Secretary,
Home Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Superintendent Office,
Trichy District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vaiyampatty Police Station,
Manaparai Taluk,
Trichy District.