The petitioner approaches this Court with a prayer to direct the 1st respondent to transfer the investigation of the case in crime No.4 of 2010 on the file of the 3rd respondent police to any other competent investigation officer under the supervision of the 1st respondent.
2. The petitioner married one Ilavarasan on 10.02.2008 and it was an arranged marriage. After the marriage, she was leading her matrimonial life with her husband only for a period of 20 days and due to work nature, the husband of the petitioner left for Kuwaith on 04.03.2008 and hence she stayed her sister-in-law's house viz., Jeyanthi, where she was asked to go to her mother-in-law's residence and she was treated very worstly by her in-laws by demanding more dowries and she was subjected to the cruelty by her husband's family viz., Jeyanthi, Murugan, Durai Natarajan, Durai Rajkumar, Durai Sivakumar, Kala and her mother-in-law one Shanthi and demanded to bring 10 sovereign of gold and 1 lakh cash from her father as additional dowry. That factum has been ventilated to her husband over phone and her husband advised her to act on the advice of the family members and subsequently he refused to talk with her. On 08.05.2009 a.m., the petitinoer's in-laws attacked by tearing the petitioner's blouse and trying to set her ablaze by pouring kerosene over her body. On the alarm given by the petitioner, she was rescued by neighbours and on the information given by the neighbours, the petitioner's parents came there and took her to their house. Immediately she preferred a complaint before the 3rd respondent and a receipt has been given, but they have not taken any steps, since the petitioner's in-laws are influencing the 3rd respondent.
3. In the year 2009, the petitioner's husband came to India and at that time, the petitioner requested the 3rd respondent to take action on the complaint given by her, but no action has been taken. On 30.05.2010, the S.I of Police one Rekahrani vijayalakshmi attached to the 3rd respondent police station asked her and family members to come for the negotiation with the petitioner's in-laws. Believing their words, the petitioner and her sister Kavitha went to 3rd respondent police station, where the petitioner husband and his family were present. During the negotiation, she was abused by her husband and his brothers and sisters with filthy language and they assaulted the husband of the pettiioner's sister indiscriminately. Again the petitioner approached the 1st respondent and lodged a complaint stating that the 3rd respondent refused to take effective steps on her complaint and supported her husband's family. Thereafter, on instruction given by the 1st respondent, a case has been registered by the 3rd respondent in crime No.4 of 2010 against the petitioner's husband and his family members for the offence under
section 294(b),352,506(1), and
498 (A) of I.P.C and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Simultaneously, a case has been registered by the Kumbakonam East Police Station in crime No.369 of 2010, for the offence under
Sections 294(B),323 of I.P.C against the petitioner's husband's brothers one Rajendran, Raja and Murugan on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner's sister's husband Kannan. But, the respondents are reluctant to take steps to arrest them and put them behind bars. Since the 3rd respondent is acting in favour of the accused persons the petitioner has no other option but to file this application for the transfer of the investigation from the 3rd respondent to some other investigation agency under the supervision of the 1st respondent and hence she prayed for the allowing the petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the date of occurrence is on 08.05.2009 and the 3rd respondent has not taken any steps on the complaint given by the petitioner and after intervention of the higher officials, the case has been registered. He would further submit that on 07.06.2000, an H.M.O.P. petitioner has also been filed by the petitioner and after investigation, the 3rd respondent referred the matter and filed the Referred Charge Sheet on 01.07.2010 and since notice has also been served through the Village Administrative Officer on 09.07.2010, nothing survives in this application and hence he prayed for the dismissal of the application.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the case diary which was produced by the respondent police.
7. Perusal of the case diary would show that after intervention of the higher officials only, the case has been registered in crime No.4 of 2010 on 18.06.2010 against 9 persons. As per the avernment in the petition, on the date of compromise also, the brother-in-law of the petitioner was assaulted by the petitioner's in-laws and the petitioner was also assaulted by her husband and hence yet another case has been registered against the in-laws of the petitioner. The prosecution has examined the petitioner viz., Anbukkarasi, one Gurusamy, Karunanithi, Marimuthu and Sakthivel, Mariappan, Murugesan and Renganathan and the father and mother of the petitioner were also examined on 19.06.2010.
8. While considering the statements of the above witnesses, there is prima-facie averment in respect of the demand of more dowry. Further perusal of the case diary would show that the case has been registered on 18.06.2010 and referred charge sheet has been filed on 01.07.2010 in R.C.S.No.2 of 2010.
9. In such circumstances, since the petitioner is not happy with the investigation done by the 3rd respondent, she has approached this Court for transferring the investigation from the 3rd respondent to any other investigation officer under the supervision of the 1st respondent. Even though the R.C.S. notice has been filed on 01.07.2010, it has been filed before the Court only on 19.07.2010, which shows that the 3rd respondent has not shown any interest in investigating the matter in a proper manner.
10. Considering the way in which the respondent acted from 16.07.2010 to 22.07.2010, I am not happy with the investigation done by the 3rd respondent and the manner in which he represented the matter before this Court and because of his representation only, a report has been called for and then only, this Court came to know that the case has been registered only after intervention of the higher officials and the 3rd respondent filed the Referred Charge Sheet on 01.07.2010 and he filed the same before the Court concerned on 19.07.2010, i.e. after the filing of the present petition.
11. Furthermore, it is the duty of the investigating agency to serve the Referred Charge Sheet notice to the petitioner before filing the same before the Court concerned, but there is no reason assigned by the respondent police as to why the Referred Charge Sheet has been affixed and signature has been obtained in the house of the petitioner through Village Administrative Officer. All these things have given suspicion in the mind of the court.
12.Now, it is appropriate to consider the decision relied on by the petitioner's counsel in Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh through its Secretary Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1023, wherein, the Apex Court has held as follows: In the instant case, it was alleged that a practicing lawyer, his wife and child were abducted and murdered. The lawyers fraternity were not satisfied with the police investigation and demanded judicial enquiry. The investigating having been completed by the police and charge sheet submitted to the court, it is not for Supreme Court, ordinarily to re-open the investigation. Nevertheless, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, to do complete justice in the matter and to instil confidence in the public mind it is necessary to have fresh investigation in this case through a specialised agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), CBI was directed to take up the investigation of the case.
13. In Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna and another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 685, the Apex Court has held as follows:
The investigating officer may exercise his statutory power of further investigation in several situations as, for example, when new facts come to his notice; when certain aspects of the matter had not been considered by him and he found that further investigation is necessary to be carried out from a different angle(s) keeping in view the fact that new of further materials came to his notice. Apart from the aforementioned grounds, the learned Magistrate or the superior courts can direct further investigation, if the investigation is found to be tainted and/or otherwise unfair or is otherwise necessary in the ends of justice. The question, however, is as to whether in a case of this nature a direction for further investigation would be necessary.
14.In Paramjit Kaur (Mrs) Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (1996) 7 SCC 20, the Apex Court has held as follows:
Mr.M.L.Sarin, learned Advocate General, Punjab has very fairly stated that keeping in view the serious allegations levelled by the petitioner against the officers/officials of the Punjab Police, it would be in the interest of justice that the investigation in this matter be handed over to an independent authority. Even otherwise, in order to instil confidence in the public mind and to do justice to the petitioner and his family it would be proper to withdraw the investigation from Punjab Police in this case. We, therefore, direct the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation to appoint an investigation team headed by a responsible officer to hold investigation in the kidnapping and whereabouts of Khalra. We further direct the Director General of Police, Punjab, all Punjab Police Officers concerned, Home Secretary and Chief Secretary Punjab to render all assistance and help to the CBI in the investigation.
15.In Zahira Habibilla H. Sheikh and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 158, wherein, the Apex Court has held as follows:
"If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the relatives or covering the obvious deficiencies, courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the framework of law."
16. In Babubhai Jamnadas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2009)9 SCC 610, wherein, this Court has held as follows:
"The Various decisions cited by Mr.Dave endorse the view that when required not only could the High Court or this Court direct the investigating agencies to conduct the investigation in a fair and unbiased manner, but that in exercise of its powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court could also issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights and to ensure that complete justice was done to the parties."
17. Considering the above said citations and as per the
Article 142 of the Constitution, a fair and proper investigation is necessary. Hence, I am of the opinion that to meet out the ends of justice and to instil confidence in the public mind, it is necessary to transfer the investigation from the 3rd respondent to any other investigation officer and the investigation should be supervised by any one of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the same Division.
13. In fine, this criminal original petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The 1st respondent, the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District is directed to depute any one of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police and direct her to re-investigate the matter afresh on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner in accordance with law.
R.MALA,J.
Arul
(ii) He is further directed to depute a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the same division and ask him to supervise the matter and file a final report in accordance with law.
Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 is closed.
arul To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kumbakonam.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai