IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.11.2007
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM
Criminal Original Petition No.29087 of 2007
Tmt.J.Jayashree ..Petitioner
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore
Chennai 8.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law & Order)
T.Nagar Police District
T.Nagar
Chennai 17.
3. The Sub Inspector of Police (Law & Order)
R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station
K.K.Nagar
Chennai 78.
4. The Station House Officer
Tada Police Station
Nellore District
Andhra Pradesh.
5. The Central Bureau of Investigation
Rep. by the Superintendent of Police
Special Crime Branch
Rajaji Bhavan
Besant Nagar
Chennai 90. ..Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to transfer the investigation in Crime No.1888 of 2007
pending on the file of the third respondent and Crime No.100 of
2007 pending on the file of the fourth respondent to the fifth
respondent / CBI and direct the fifth respondent to investigate
this case and file a final report in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.Satyanarayan for M/s. N.S.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R-1 to R-3
Mr. P.Madha Rao, Sub-Inspector for R-4.
Mr. N.Chandrasekaran for R-5.
O R D E R
The petitioner lodged a complaint on 29.07.2007 with the
third respondent stating that her husband was missing from
27.07.2007 and sought for appropriate action to trace her husband-
Mr.R.Narayanan. The third respondent registered a case in Crime
No.1888 of 2007 for ‘man missing’. On 02.08.2007 the petitioner
being informed by the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the
fourth respondent Police Station that they have found a body
below a culvert of Mambattu Road on 28.07.2007 and after seeing
the photograph of the body the petitioner identified the
photograph as that of her husband. The petitioner came to know
that the fourth respondent after holding inquest and post-mortem
had buried the body of her husband on 30.07.2007 itself. After
due permission the body was exhumed and last rites were performed
at Sulurpet. The fourth respondent-Police has also registered a
case in Crime No.100 of 2007 on 28.07.2007 for the offence under
Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code. As per the inquest
report prepared by the fourth respondent, 12 injuries were found
on the head, face and other parts of the body of the petitioner’s
husband which indicate that the death was due to homicidal
violence.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no mutual
co-operation between the third and fourth respondents with regard
to the above said two cases. The petitioner has stated in the
petition that both the third and fourth respondents are not
evincing any interest in investigating into the matter stating
that the offence had not taken place in their jurisdiction; so
far the mobile phone and car of the petitioner’s husband have not
been traced; no steps have been taken to collect the records
pertaining to the calls made and received through the mobile
phone of her husband; in view of the lapses on the part of the
third and fourth respondents there is no progress at all in the
investigation of the cases. On the above said grounds, the
petitioner has come before this Court seeking transfer of the
investigation in Crime No.1888 of 2007 pending on the file of the
third respondent and in Crime No.100 of 2007 pending on the file
of the fourth respondent to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In
the counter affidavit various steps taken by the third respondent
after registering the case in crime No.1888 of 2007 have been set-
out in detail. The third respondent has also referred to the
registration of the case in Crime No.100 of 2007 by the fourth
respondent and regarding the steps taken by the fourth respondent
in the course of investigation. It is further stated in the
counter affidavit that the cause of action being within the
jurisdiction of Tada Police Station, no parallel investigation
can be conducted and the investigation has to be pursued by the
fourth respondent only. It is further stated that the records
and statements pertaining to Crime No.1888 of 2007 are being
forwarded to the fourth respondent and it is also stated that in
the said circumstances investigation by any specialised agency
may not advance the case any further.
4. At the time of hearing of the above petition, Mr. P.Madha
Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the fourth respondent-
Police Station was present in the Court with the C.D. File. The
fifth respondent was represented by Mr. N.Chandrasekaran, learned
counsel for CBI cases. The fourth respondent has produced a copy
of the communication in R.C.No.4812/compliance/2/2007, dated
22.10.2007 sent by the Director General of Police, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderbad to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.
A perusal of the said communication shows that the Director
General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has informed the
Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu that the case in Crime
No.100 of 2007 on the file of the fourth respondent is being
transferred for further investigation to the third respondent-
Police and a request has been made to direct the concerned to
take necessary action in the matter as the subject matter
pertains to Crime No.1888 of 2007 on the file of the third
respondent and the entire C.D. file pertaining to Crime No.100 of
2007 has also been enclosed.
5. Heard Mr. M.Satyanarayanan learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate
(Crl. Side) for Respondents 1 to 3, Mr.P.Madharao, Sub-Inspector,
for the fourth respondent and Mr. N.Chandrasekaran learned
counsel for the CBI Cases for the fifth respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though
the petitioner’s husband was missing from 27.07.2007 and the
complaint was lodged on 29.07.2007 no effective steps have been
taken by the third respondent and though the fourth respondent
has registered a case in Crime No.100 of 2007 so far no effective
steps have been taken to trace the missing car and no details
have been collected in respect of the calls made and received
through the mobile phone of the petitioner’s husband; while the
third respondent has taken a stand that since the body has been
found within the limits of Tada Police Station, the fourth
respondent herein, the investigation has to be done by the fourth
respondent, the fourth respondent has already taken a stand that
since the offence pertains to Crime No.1888 of 2007 the further
investigation should be only conducted by the third respondent
and the entire C.D. File has already been forwarded to the
Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu. According to the learned
counsel, in such circumstances, unless the investigation is
entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation, there is
absolutely no possibility for carrying out any meaningful
investigation in the case and the real culprits will not be
brought to book and the petitioner will not get any justice.
7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for
respondents 1 to 3 submitted that since the body has been found
within the limits of the fourth respondent the investigation
should be conducted only by the fourth respondent in Crime No.100
of 2007.
8. Learned counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation for
the fifth respondent submitted if a direction is issued by this
Court directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over
the investigation the same will be complied with.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on
record.
10. As is seen from the materials available on record and
from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner though the petitioner had lodged a complaint as early
as on 27.07.2007 before the third respondent and subsequently the
fourth respondent has also registered a case in Crime No.100 of
2007 and had carried out the investigation to some extent no
effective steps seem to have been taken so far to trace the car
belonging to the petitioner’s husband and to collect the details
pertaining to the calls made and received through mobile No.98407
16531 belonging to the petitioner’s husband and the third
respondent has taken a stand that the case should be investigated
by the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent has taken a
stand that the case should be investigated by the third
respondent and in fact the Director General of Police, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad, has forwarded the entire case file and the
C.D. file relating to Crime No.100 of 2007 to the Director
General of Police, Tamil Nadu. In such circumstances, the
petitioner is caught up in the procedural angle between the third
and fourth respondents. As rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, in such circumstances, the petitioner
may not get real justice and no meaningful investigation can be
expected either from the third respondent or from the fourth
respondent. Further, since the case is inter-state crime it may
not be feasible for either the third respondent or the fourth
respondent to effectively investigate the case and since the
investigation has to be carried out both in Tamil Nadu and Andhra
Pradesh, if the investigation is entrusted to the Central Bureau
of Investigation, it will be easier for that Agency to
investigate the matter effectively. Therefore in the considered
view of this Court in the interest of justice it will be just and
proper to entrust the investigation in this matter to the Central
Bureau of Investigation.
11. Accordingly, the above criminal original petition is
allowed and the investigation in Crime No.1888 of 2007 pending on
the file of the third respondent and Crime No.100 of 2007 pending
on the file of the fourth respondent are transferred to the file
of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi – 1, for
further investigation and filing of final report. Respondents 3
and 4 are hereby directed to send the entire case records
relating to Crime No.1888 of 2007 and Crime No.100 of 2007,
respectively, to the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation,
New Delhi – 1, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order to enable the Director, Central Bureau of
Investigation, to nominate a competent officer to investigate
into the said cases.
srk
To
1. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore
Chennai 8.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law & Order)
T.Nagar Police Station
T.Nagar
Chennai 17.
3. The Sub Inspector of Police (Law & Order)
R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station
K.K.Nagar
Chennai 78.
4. The Station House Officer
Tada Police Station
Nellore District
Andhra Pradesh.
5. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
New Delhi 1.