This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to transfer the investigation in Crime No.5 of 2017 pending on the file of the second respondent police to the fourth respondent and to direct him to nominate an efficient officer to investigate the case.
2. On the basis of the information furnished by the petitioner, a case was registered in Cr.No.5 of 2017, by the second respondent on 04.01.2017 for the offences punishable under
Sections 147,148,341,294(b),302 IPC and under
Sections 3(1)(X) and
3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 3 of Tamilnadu Public Properties (Damage and Loss) Act.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has given a statement under
Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, about involvement of one Amuthan in the crime. Despite, the statement given by the petitioner, the said Amuthan is not included as an accused so far. It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent informed the petitioner that the said Amuthan cannot be implicated as an accused, since, he is an advocate.
4. The learned Government Advocate would submit, on instructions, that the final report has been filed on 22.07.2017 on the basis of investigation. It is further submitted that though the final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, it is yet to be taken up on file.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that the drawal of the final report cannot be a reason to dismiss the petition as this Court has got power to issue appropriate direction, especially, when the final report is yet to be taken on file.
6. This Court does not find any reason to transfer the investigation, on the ground that the statement of the petitioner under
Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, was not taken into account while drawing the final report. But that is not a reason to transfer the investigation especially when there is no malafide or bias alleged against the investigation officer. The statement obtained from the petitioner under
Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, is only the version of the petitioner implicating the advocate in the following lines.
?03.01.2017 mij re;ijf;F mUfpy; ,Ue;j vq;fs; nrhe;jfhuhpd; tPl;bw;F nrd;W rlq;F itj;jij nrhy;yp tpl;L tUk; NghJ ma;ak;ngUkhs; kfd; jdNrfud; nrf;Fuzpf;F vjphpy; ,Uf;fpw mtuJ Mgprpy; epd;W nfhz;L ,Ue;jhh;. mtUld; jdNrfuDld; hpay; v];Nll;> fhz;l;uhf;l; ghh;l;duhf njhopy; ghh;j;J tUk; mKjd; vd;gtUk; mtUld; epd;W nfhz;L ,Ue;jhh;. tz;bap;y; ehDk;> vd; fztUk; igf;fpy; tUk;NghJ jdNrfuDk;> mtUld; epd;W nfhz;L ,Uf;Fk; fyuhd> caukhd Ms; ahh; vd;W vd; fzthplk; Nfl;Nld;. ,th; jhd; tf;fPy; mKjd; vd;whh;. Gdq;fhbapy; eilngw;w ,ul;il nfhiyf;F mKjDk;> jdNrfuDk; jhd; fhuzk; vd;Wk; $wpdhh;.?
7. From reading the above, it cannot be said that the petitioner has made any specific reference involving the advocate in the crime committed. The First Information Report does not support the involvement of the said advocate in the crime. In the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain this criminal original petition and the same is dismissed as devoid of merits. However, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps, in case the involvement of the said Amuthan, is revealed in the course of trial before the Trial Court.
To
1.State rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai Sub-Division, Sivagangai.
2.Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Town Police Station, Sivagangai.
(Crime No.5 of 2017)
3.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.
4.The Additional Director General of Police, Head Quarters, C.B.C.I.D, Chennai.
.