{"id":4805,"date":"2009-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-12-24T10:10:55","modified_gmt":"2015-12-24T04:40:55","slug":"g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"G.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
G.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 11\/09\/2009\n\nCoram\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM\n\nW.P.(MD).No.8707 of 2009\nand M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2009\n\nG.Murugan\t\t\t\t\t. . Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Secretary to Government,\n Home Secretary,\n Fort St. George,\n Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.State rep. by\n The Director General of Police,\n Chennai.\n\n3.State rep. by\n The Superintendent of Police,\n Dindigul,\n Dindigul District.\n\n4.State rep. by\n The Inspector of Police,\n All Women Police Station,\n Dindigul,\n Dindigul District.\n\n5.State rep. by\n The Director of C.B.I.,\n Shastri Bhavan,\n Chennai.\t\t\t\t\t. . Respondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the\nissuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to instruct the\nfifth respondent to reinvestigate the case in Cr.No.195 of 2007 in S.C.No.140 of\n2008 pending on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Periakulam,\nTheni District.\n\n!For Petitioner     ... Mr.E.Somasundaram\n^For Respondents    ... Mr.D.Gandhirajan for R1 to R4\n\t\t\tGovernment Advocate\n\t\t\t\t\n\n:ORDER\t\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to
\ndirect the first respondent to instruct the fifth respondent to re-investigate
\nthe case in Cr.No.195 of 2007 in S.C.No.140 of 2008 pending on the file of the
\nlearned Assistant Sessions Judge, Periakulam, Theni District.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner
\nhas stated that he married one K.Parameshwari, on 12.06.1994 at Dindigul,
\naccording to Hindu Rites and Customs and out of their wedlock, they had two
\ndaughters and one son and they were leading a happy married life. The
\npetitioner’s wife used to go to her native place at Periakulam to see her
\nparents and during her visit she is said to have developed illegal intimacy with
\none Karuppusamy, who is running a pharmacy and he is a bachelor. According to
\nthe petitioner, though he had advised his wife to mend her ways, she did not
\nheed to his sincere advise. On the contrary, she lodged a compliant before All
\nWomen Police Station, Dindigul against the petitioner. It is stated that this
\ncomplaint was given at the instance of the said Karuppusamy.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. It is further stated by the petitioner that one Geetha, who is a Sub
\nInspector of Police, had advised the petitioner’s wife to file a H.M.O.P. before
\nthe Sub Court, Dindigul for a decree of divorce. It is further stated that
\nRs.47,000\/- was plundered from the petitioner by threat on 16.12.2007 in the
\npresence of the relatives of the petitioner’s wife. The petitioner would further
\nsubmit that his wife had eloped with the said Karuppusamy along with her
\ndaughter to Alli Nagar at Theni and when Karuppusamy was being with her, the
\nneighbours objected to the same and Karuppusamy shifted her to another place at
\nPattalamman Street, Lakshmipuram, Theni, with the help of one Solaiyappan, who
\nis said to be a close associate of Karuppusamy.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. It is further stated that the said Karuppusamy had tortured the
\npetitioner’s wife and asked her to run away, since he wanted to marry a girl as
\narranged by his parents. The petitioner’s wife came to Thiruppur and stayed with
\nher relative, one Mrs.Rani.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. According to the petitioner, Geetha, the Sub Inspector of Police,
\nKaruppusamy, Ramraj (Karuppusamy’s father), Solaiyappan and Raja planned to kill
\npetitioner’s wife. It is further alleged that the aforesaid persons brought the
\npetitioner’s wife to Mohaideen Pallivasal Street, North Forest Road, Vadakarai,
\nPeriyakulam and killed her.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Based on this allegations, the petitioner submitted a representation to
\nthe District Collector, Dindigul on 17.12.2007 and the matter was also widely
\npublished in the Newspaper. However, the petitioner’s representation was not
\nconsidered and he made further representation to the Honourable Chief Minister
\non 28.08.2008, to the Director General of Police on 11.09.2008 as well as a
\npetition before the State Human Rights Commission on 04.09.2008. The petitioner
\nwould further submit that the post morterm certificate reveals that the “Hyoid
\nBone” is intact and photograph also revealed that the murderers had hanged the
\npetitioner’s wife.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. It is further stated that based on such incident, the fourth respondent
\nregistered a case in Cr.No.195 of 2007 under Section 306 IPC. It is further
\nstated that the Sub Inspector of Police, Geetha, was not included in the First
\nInformation Report as well as in the Charge Sheet. The case has been committed
\nto Sessions in S.C.No.140 of 2008 and even according to the petitioner six
\nwitnesses have already been examined on the side of the prosecution and the
\npetitioner’s minor daughter was also examined on the side of the prosecution.
\nAccording to the petitioner, in spite of evidence, the police have not converted
\nthe case under Section 306 to 302 IPC. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for
\nthe present relief.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. I have heard Mr.E.Somasundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the
\npetitioner at length and Mr.D.Gandhirajan, learned Government Advocate for the
\nrespondents 1 to 4 and perused the materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The learned counsel for the petitioner had set out the facts of the
\ncase as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In
\nfact, the learned counsel for the petitioner took pains to narrate the details
\nas to how the entire episode had happened. However, the learned counsel would
\nfairly admit that at present the matter is now pending before the Sessions Court
\nand the trial is proceeding expeditiously. After considering the factual
\nsubmissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary for
\nthis Court, to decide upon the scope of interference of this Court in such
\nmatters and more particularly in matters seeking for transfer of investigation
\nafter commencement of trial.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The legal principle on this issue has been settled by the Honourable
\nSupreme Court in several decisions and this Court proposed to refer some of the
\ndecisions here under;\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 1992 (1) SCC 397
\n(Gudalure M.J.Cherian and others Vs. Union of India and others) was dealing with
\na petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which was filed as a
\nPIL, regarding the rape two nuns at Gajraula in Uttar Pradesh wherein the
\npetitioners contend that the investigation of the case should be entrusted to
\nthe Central Bureau of Investigation. After discussing about the factual
\naverments in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
\ninvestigation having been completed by the Police and charge sheet submitted to
\nthe Court, it is not for the Supreme Court, ordinarily, to reopen the
\ninvestigation specially by entrusting the same to a specialised agency like CBI.
\nThe Supreme Court further observed that they were conscious, that of late the
\ndemand for CBI investigation even in police cases is on the increase.
\nNevertheless in a given situation, to do justice between the parties and to
\ninstil confidence in the public mind, it may become necessary to ask the CBI to
\ninvestigate a crime as it only shows the efficiency and the independence of the
\nagency. Therefore, in the light of the averments made and keeping in view the
\nfacts and circumstances of the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
\nthat ends of justice would be met if the CBI is directed to hold further
\ninvestigation in respect of the offences committed.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2004 (7) SCC 768 (Gangadhar Janardan
\nMhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) was dealing with the legality of the
\norder passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing a criminal
\nwrit petition filed seeking for a direction for transfer of investigation from
\nState CID to any other impartial investigating agency. While considering the
\nquestion of maintainability of the writ petition for such relief, the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“13.When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that
\nbehalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with
\nSection 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having
\njurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to
\nenquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the
\nMagistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing
\nprocess to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to
\ninvestigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report.
\nIf he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further
\naction, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code.
\nIn case he finds that the complaint\/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an
\noffence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue
\nprocess to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All
\nIndia Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
4. It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be
\nentertained.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.The inevitable conclusion is that the High Court’s order does not
\nsuffer from any infirmity. The writ application was not the proper remedy, and
\nwithout availing the remedy available under the Code, the appellant could not
\nhave approached the High Court by filing a writ application”.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In 2002 (5) SCC 521 (Secretary Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering
\nServices, U.P. and others Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another), the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt decided the question as to when the High Court cannot direct enquiry by
\nCBI by exercising its power under Article 226 has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226
\nto direct an inquiry by CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where
\nthere is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a
\nneed for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the
\npleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration
\nof such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is
\nsufficient to direct such an inquiry by CBI. This is a requirement which is
\nclearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause1.
\nThis Court in the said judgment at paragraph 174 of the Report has held thus:
\n(SCC p. \t750, para 174)
\n“174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate ‘any
\nother offence’ is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction
\nfor investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have
\nbeen committed or a person’s involvement is prima facie established, but a
\ndirection to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or
\nnot cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept
\nand philosophy of ‘life’ and ‘liberty’ guaranteed to a person under Article 21
\nof the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions
\nof this Court in which the concept of ‘life’ has been explained in a manner
\nwhich has infused ‘life’ into the letters of Article 21.”\n<\/p>\n
\t6.It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life
\nunder Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded by
\nthe police or CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living
\nas a law-abiding citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct an
\ninquiry by CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after
\nconsidering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does
\ndisclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other
\nsimilar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely
\nbecause a party makes some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that
\nthe High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that there is a prima
\nfacie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded on the basis of “ifs”
\nand “buts” and thought it appropriate that the inquiry should be made by CBI.
\nWith respect, we think that this is not what is required by the law as laid down
\nby this Court in the case of Common Cause1″.(emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In Sasi Thomas Vs. State and others reported in 2006(12) SCC 421, the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of interference with criminal,
\ntrials held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“26.The High Court or this Court in exercise of the said power is entitled
\nto reach injustice wherever it is found. But, it is not a case where cognizance
\nhad not been taken. It is not even a case where a direction under sub-section
\n(8) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be issued at this
\nstage. It is also not a case, in our opinion, to interfere with the trial of the
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
\t33.Such a direction, thus, can be issued where there had been complete
\nfailure of justice and in a case where the investigating and prosecuting
\nagencies were found to have not performed their role in the manner they were
\nexpected to do”. (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\t15. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.,<\/a>(2007) 4 Crimes 338 SC, the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court while   discussing the scope of interference in criminal matters
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India and when High Court can direct
\nenquiry by CBI has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“33.In Secy., Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram
\nArya15 (SCC vide para 6) this Court observed that although the High Court has
\npower to order a CBI inquiry, that power should only be exercised if the High
\nCourt after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such
\nmaterial discloses prima facie a case calling for investigation by CBI or by any
\nother similar agency. A CBI inquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or
\nmerely because the party makes some allegation.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.In the present case, we are of the opinion that the material on record
\ndoes not disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI. The
\nmere allegation of the appellant that his son was murdered because he had
\ndiscovered some corruption cannot, in our opinion, justify a CBI inquiry,
\nparticularly when inquiries were held by the army authorities as well as by GRP
\nat Mathura, which revealed that it was a case of suicide”. (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\t16. In Divine Retreat Centre Vs.State of Kerala   reported in AIR 2008 SC
\n1614, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt dealt with the scope, content and ambit of the inherent power conferred on
\nthe High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1974. While dealing with the said
\nquestion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
\n\t“33.The sum and substance of the above deliberation and analysis of the
\nlaw cited leads us to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation of an
\noffence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers
\nin that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the
\ncognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the
\nprovisions under Chapter XII of the Code. However, we may hasten to add that
\nunfettered discretion does not mean any unaccountable or unlimited discretion
\nand act according to one’s own choice. The power to investigate must be
\nexercised strictly on the condition of which that power is granted by the Code
\nitself.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.In our view, the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
\ncannot change the investigating officer in the midstream and appoint any agency
\nof its own choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis and more
\nparticularly on the basis of complaints or anonymous petitions addressed to a
\nnamed Judge. Such communications cannot be converted into suo motu proceedings
\nfor setting the law in motion. Neither are the accused nor the complainant or
\ninformant entitled to choose their own investigating agency to investigate a
\ncrime in which they may be interested.\n<\/p>\n
\t35.It is altogether a different matter that the High Court in exercise of
\nits power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always issue
\nappropriate directions at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court
\nis convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an
\ninvestigating officer mala fide. That power is to be exercised in the rarest of
\nthe rare case where a clear case of abuse of power and non-compliance with the
\nprovisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring
\nthe interference of the High Court. But even in such cases, the High Court
\ncannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can
\nalways insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Code.\n<\/p>\n
\t36….\n<\/p>\n
\t37….\n<\/p>\n
\t38.One of the documents enclosed to the anonymous petition is a magazine
\nby name Divine Voice published by the appellant. In one of the volumes published
\nin June 2005 the names of senior IAS and IPS officers were mentioned as the
\nmembers of the Advisory Board; one such named officer is stated to have decided
\nsome matter in favour of the appellant. The High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.
\n22543 of 2005 made some observations to the effect that the said officer was
\nreally associated with the appellant Centre and the order passed by that officer
\nin favour of the appellant is a nullity. Thereafter the name of that officer was
\ndeleted from the names of persons of the Advisory Board. Based on such vague and
\nindefinite allegations the High Court gave the following directions without even
\nissuing notice to the appellant:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) The Government shall issue notification under Section 17 of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act conferring power to the special investigation team
\nconstituted by the Court to investigate the offences under the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act;\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) The special investigation team shall also inquire into the
\nallegations of foreign exchange violation;\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) The special investigation team shall also inquire into the
\nallegations of unnatural deaths stated in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t40.On a careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Judge, we find
\nthat the learned Judge initiated suo motu proceedings without even examining as
\nto whether the contents of the anonymous letter and material sent along with it
\ndisclosed any prima facie case for ordering an investigation. The question is:
\ncan investigation be ordered by the High Court in exercise of its inherent
\njurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code based on such vague and indefinite
\nallegations made in unsigned petition without even arriving at any prima facie
\nconclusion that the contents thereof reveal commission of any cognizable
\noffence? Whether such directions could have been issued by the High Court even
\nin exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?\n<\/p>\n
\t43.It is evident from Sections 154, 156 and 157 of the Code that even a
\npolice officer can act on the basis of information received or otherwise and
\nproceed to investigate provided he has reason to suspect the commission of a
\ncognizable offence which he is empowered to investigate under Section 156 Cr.PC.
\nIf the essential requirements of the penal provisions are not prima facie
\ndisclosed by a first information report and the police officer has no reason to
\nsuspect the commission of a cognizable offence, no investigation can be
\nundertaken by him based on the information received or otherwise. Can the High
\nCourt set the law in motion against the named and unnamed individuals based on
\nthe information received by it without recording the reasons that the
\ninformation received by it prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable
\noffence? Setting criminal law in motion is fraught with serious consequences,
\nwhich cannot lightly be undertaken by the High Court even in exercise of its
\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the
\nHigh Court in exercise of its whatsoever jurisdiction cannot direct
\ninvestigation by constituting a special investigation team on the strength of
\nanonymous petitions. The High Courts cannot be converted into station houses.
\n(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\t17. A Division Bench of this Court in Alliraj Gounder Vs.The Inspector of
\nPolice, Udumalpet Town Police Station, Udumalpet, Coimbatore District and
\nanother reported in 2005 (3) CTC 673 also dealt with a writ petition seeking for
\ntransfer of investigation wherein the Division Bench of this Court after relying
\nupon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. Vs. Rajesh Gandhi
\nreported in 1997 Crl.L.J. 63,  held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“4.Moreover if the writ petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation
\nbeing done by the police, he has a remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned
\nunder Section 156(3), Cr.P.C vide H.S.Bains Vs. State, AIR 1980 SC 1883, and if
\nthe said Magistrate is satisfied about the allegations of the petitioner, he can
\ndirect the police agency which he deems to be appropriate to do the proper
\ninvestigation into the complaint of the petitioner, and he can also monitor the
\npolice investigation.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Sub-section (3) of Section 156, in other words, provides a check by the
\nMagistrates on the duties to be performed by the police under Chapter XII,
\nCr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its
\nduty of investigating the case at all or has not done it satisfactorily, he can
\nissue a direction for the police to do it properly or do it again, and\/or issue
\nsuch other directions to the police as he deems appropriate for securing a
\nproper investigation into the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Thus, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section
\n156(3), which he should avail of by approaching the Magistrate. Writ petitions
\nof this nature should not be entertained by this Court in view of the existence
\nof the appropriate efficacious alternative remedy under the Criminal Procedure
\nCode itself, otherwise this Court will be flooded with such writ petitions”.
\n(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\t18. In Asit Bhattacharjee Vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and others reported in
\n2007(5) SCC 786, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has dealt with the
\nscope of the interference in criminal matters under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India  as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“33.Stricto sensu, therefore, the High Court should not have issued such a
\ndirection. Assuming, however, that the High Court could mould the relief, in our
\nopinion, it was not a case where on the face of the allegations made in the
\ncomplaint petition, the same could be said to be mala fide. A major part of the
\ncause of action might have arisen in the State of U.P., but the same by itself
\nwould not mean that the Calcutta Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever”.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. Thus, based on the above referred judgments, the following could be
\nculled out:\n<\/p>\n
\t“i)That the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
\nalways be invoked to issue appropriate directions at the instance of an
\naggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation
\nhas been exercised by an Investigating Officer mala fide.\n<\/p>\n
\tii)That power of the High Court is to be exercised in rarest of rare cases
\nwhere a clear case of abuse of power and non compliance with the provisions
\nfalling under Chapter XII  of the Code is clearly made  out requiring the
\ninterference of the High Court. But even in such cases, the High court cannot
\ndirect as to how the investigation has to be conducted but can always  insist
\nfor observation of process as provided under the Code.\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)None can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution to direct inquiry by CBI, the said power can be exercised only in
\ncases where there is sufficient material to come to a conclusion that there is
\nneed for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such materials in the
\npleadings.\n<\/p>\n
\tiv)Setting the criminal liability and fraught with serious consequences
\nwhich cannot lightly be taken by the High Court even in exercise of its
\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\tv)The High Court in exercise of its whatsoever  jurisdiction cannot direct
\ninvestigation by constituting a Special Investigation Team on the strength of
\nvague allegations”.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. If the facts of the present case are examined by applying above
\nreferred legal principles, it is to be noted that there are no sufficient
\nmaterials warranting interference of this Court for transfer of investigation
\nthat too when the trial has commenced before the sessions Court and more than
\nsix witnesses have been examined on the side of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to point out that
\nthere is suspicion in the manner and the nature of death of the petitioner’s
\nwife by stating about the circumstances of the case as well as by placing
\nreliance upon the postmortem certificate and would contend that this is a fit
\ncase where such power should be exercised.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. As noted above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has added a word of caution
\nthat the power of transfer of investigation could be exercised only in the
\nrarest of rare cases and such power should not be exercised to stifle a
\nlegitimate prosecution and the High Court should refrain from giving a prima
\nfacie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and evidence has
\nnot been collected and produced before the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
\nfurther held that based on vague and indefinite allegations, the High court
\nought not to have issued directions for transfer of investigation or for
\nordering investigation by any other special investigating body.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. If these allegations are put to scrutiny on the tests laid down by the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court, in the decision referred supra, these are not sufficient
\nmaterial for the court to come to a conclusion that there is need for transfer
\nof the investigation agency. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
\nDivine Retreat Centre Vs.State of Kerala referred supra, that the investigation
\nof an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose
\npowers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the
\ncognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the
\nprovisions under Chapter XII of the Code. However, unfettered discretion does
\nnot mean any unaccountable or unlimited discretion and act according to one’s
\nown choice. The High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot
\nchange the Investigating Officer in the mid-stream and appoint any agency of its
\nown choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis and more particularly
\non the basis of complaints or anonymous petitions. Further the Honourable
\nSupreme Court in the cases of Sasi Thomas and Sakiri Vasu, cited supra, that the
\nHigh Court cannot interfere with the trial of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
\napplying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is to be held that
\nthe doubts raised by the petitioner in his representation and the affidavit are
\nnot sufficient to make out a case for transfer of investigation. Therefore, the
\nprayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and the writ petition is
\nliable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
\nConsequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n
JIKR<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary to Government,
\n Home Secretary,
\n Fort St. George,
\n Chennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.State rep. by
\n The Director General of Police,
\n Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.State rep. by
\n The Superintendent of Police,
\n Dindigul,
\n Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n
4.State rep. by
\n The Inspector of Police,
\n All Women Police Station,
\n Dindigul,
\n Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n
5.State rep. by
\n The Director of C.B.I.,
\n Shastri Bhavan,
\n Chennai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court G.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11\/09\/2009 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.(MD).No.8707 of 2009 and M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2009 G.Murugan . . Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government, Home Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.State rep. by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4805","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-24T04:40:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-24T04:40:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4465,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009\",\"name\":\"G.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-24T04:40:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"G.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-24T04:40:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-24T04:40:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009"},"wordCount":4465,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009","name":"G.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-24T04:40:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-murugan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 11 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4805","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4805"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4805\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4805"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4805"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4805"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}