ORDER
R. Banumathi, J.
1. The Petitioner seeks Writ of Mandamus to direct investigation of the case by CBI regarding death of his son Arul on 24.03.1995, registered in Cr. No. 161/1995 on the file of Inspector of Police, Vikaravandi Police Station.
2. Petition averments are as follows:
Petitioner’s eldest son Arul has studied Engineering and has also obtained Diploma in Sugar Engineering Programme in the year 1994. He joined in the third Respondent Company as Trainee Engineer from September 1994 and he was staying within the premises of the third Respondent. On 24.03.1995, the Petitioner has learnt that his son died and when they went to the premises, they were not permitted to go near the body of their son. Only after the body was taken to the hospital by the police, the Petitioner was permitted to go inside the quarters along with one constable by name Srinivasan, P.C. 138. According to the Petitioner, while his wife and himself were collecting belongings of their son, they found a note in their son’s box written in Tamil stating that Suresh Babu and his party, SIS Officers and the workers were responsible for his death. But the said P.C. Srinivasan taken away the note from the Petitioner. Later, the said Constable Srinivasan informed the Petitioner that the said note was taken away by Suresh Babu a co-trainee Engineering of his son.
2.2.The Petitioner and his wife have sent representations to the Director General of Police and also to the Chief Minister’s Cell to take necessary action on the suspicious death of their son Arul. Only by filing Criminal Original Petition before the High Court, the Petitioner was able to get copy of the Postmortem Certificate and Forensic Lab Report. Later, the Petitioner filed Petition for a direction to hand over the case to CBCID, to properly investigate the case. According to the Petitioner, there was no further progress and the suspicious death of his son was not properly investigated. The third Respondent has also not settled the amount payable for the death of his son, including balance wages, bonus and compensation, till date and hence, the Petitioner seeks for direction to investigate the case by CBI – the fourth Respondent.
3. Insisting for CBI Enquiry, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that death of Arul is in highly suspicious circumstances and when no proper investigation was done, the Court, exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could order investigation by CBI. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon Lourdumary v. State by Inspector General of Police, Chennai and Ors.
4. Taking the Court through the counter and various stages of investigation, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that fair and honest investigation was taken up by the police and the investigation disclosed that death was suicidal one and hence, no further investigation need be initiated.
5. The learned Counsel for the Management has submitted that when serious allegations have been levelled against Suresh Babu and his party, the Writ Petition is not maintainable having not impleaded the said Suresh Babu and Ors.. Placing reliance upon 2002 (2) SCC 610 [Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. And Ors. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Anr. the learned Counsel has submitted that CBI investigation cannot be ordered as a matter of routine.
6. It is well settled that CBI investigation cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. Only when the High Court comes to the conclusion that the materials on record disclose a prima facie case that the investigation has not been done in a fair and objective manner, the High Court could direct CBI investigation. Observing that CBI investigation is not a matter of routine, in 2002 (2) CTC 610 [cited supra] the Supreme Court has held as under:
6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded by the police or the CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living as a law-abiding citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct an inquiry by the CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that the High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that there is a prima facie case established to direct an inquriy has proceeded should be made by the CBI. With respect, we think that this is not what is required by the law as laid down by this Court in case of Common Cause [supra].
7. The Supreme Court in 1997 AIR SCW 725 Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi, has held as follows:
If during the investigation under Chapter XII of the Code, the police are found to be not performing their duty by conducting an honest, objective and speedy investigation, then, at that stage the aggrieved party can use the mandamus procedure by moving the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to see that the police perform their duty objectively.
8. From the above, it is clear that the Court cannot direct CBI investigation as a matter of routine. Only in cases where the police are found to be not performing their duty in a honest and objective manner, the Court could direct CBI investigation. In the present case, let us consider whether sufficient grounds are made out to direct CBI investigation. The counter affidavit filed by the second Respondent refers to the details of the investigation.
9. Regarding death of Arul, on the complaint lodged by the General Manager of the Management, SIS Limited, on 24.03.1995 at 1.45 p.m., a case of suspicious death was registered in Cr. No. 161/1995, under Section 174 Cr.P.C., by Head Constable No. 138 of Vikkaravandi Police Station. The same Head Constable has taken up the investigation and has conducted inquest over the body in the presence of the Panchayatars. Thereafter, the said Head Constable has examined a number of witnesses, including the Petitioner, and recorded their statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. After Postmortem Examination, the body was handed over to the Petitioner at 6 p.m. on the same day i.e. 24.03.1995. Seizure of suicidal note has been denied by the second Respondent. Though the Petitioner raised doubts regarding the death of his son, the Petitioner has not lodged any complaint nor made any statement stating that his son’s death is either by murder or accident. Postmortem certificate also disclosed no evidence of any injury to the Hyoid Bone and the Department of Forensic Science had found that the Hyoid bone was intact. On conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Agency has arrived at the conclusion that the death was due to suicide by hanging and further action was dropped. Copy of the FIR is said to have been sent to the Tahsildar. If the Petitioner was aggrieved over the dropping of further action, he ought to have taken steps before the appropriate Forum. No prima facie case is made out to direct CBI to investigate the case.
10. Of course, it would have been desirable if a responsible Officer had conducted the investigation. If the Petitioner thought that the investigation was not done in a fair manner, he ought to have approached Court then and there. No useful purpose would be served by issuing any direction to investigation at this distant point of time. The Petitioner has not made out grounds to order investigation by CBI.
11. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, the third Respondent is directed to settle all the dues payable to the Petitioner’s son to the Petitioner. In addition to the amount payable to the Petitioner, the third Respondent is also directed to consider the request of the Petitioner to make any ex-gratia payment.