Prayer Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to withdraw the case in Crime No.391 of 2006 on the file of the respondent No.3 and entrust the same to the respondent No.4 to appoint a fair officer for investigation under the supervision of respondent No.1 and direct the respondent No.4 to file the final report before the Judicial Magistrate within the time frame fixed by this Court.
Petition filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent police to implement the order passed by this Court dated 25.04.2007 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.3854 of 2007 and consequently direct the third respondent to hand over the investigation in Crime No.391 of 2006 to Central Bureau of Investigation or any other Investigation Agency.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.C.Ramachandran ^For Respondents ... Mr.Siva Ayyappan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) * * * * * Crl.O.P(MD)No.12376 of 2007:
#Hasan Ammal ... Petitioner Vs $1.State of Tamilnadu rep. by The Home Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9. 2.The Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli. 4.Central Bureau of Investigation rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Shastri Bhawan, Nungampakkam, Chennai. ... Respondents Prayer
Petition filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to withdraw the case in Crime No.391 of 2006 on the file of the respondent No.3 and entrust the same to the respondent No.4 to appoint a fair officer for investigation of the case with a competent officer and to file a final report before the Judicial Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court.
!For Petitioner... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ^For RR1 to 3 ... Mr.Siva Ayyappan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondent ... Mr.S.Rozario Sundarraj No.4 Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases * * * * * :COMMON ORDER Crl.O.P(MD)No.7487 of 2008:
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/aggrieved person seeking for the withdrawal of the case in Crime No.391 of 2006 on the file of the third respondent and to entrust the same to the fourth respondent/C.B.I. for investigation and to file the final report.
2. The brief facts stated by the petitioner are as follows as in the petition:
(i) The petitioner's husband viz., Mohammed Masud was doing chit fund business in their locality and met with substantial loss because of several defaulters and regarding the non-payment of the chit amount, few subscribers lodged criminal complaints and initiated civil suits against her husband.
(ii) It was alleged that on 27.11.2005, her husband and one Kalyani had arranged a Tata Sumo car owned by one Kudib Meera Hussain for rent and one Krishnamoorthy was engaged as driver. They picked up three persons at Edaikal and they dropped two persons at Tenkasi and went to Nagercoil and picked up two more persons. While they were proceeding to Trivandrum, they stopped the vehicle near one Bungalow at Nedumangadu Village and they went into the bungalow along with the driver. The four persons secretly made deliberations and tied the driver Krishnamoorthy with a rope. Then the three persons drove away the vehicle and returned after six hours. Thereafter they released the driver and gave some sum. Then, the driver informed the said incident to his owner and the owner lodged a complaint before the police and based on that complaint, the Inspector Ravichandran and his sleuth went to Nedumangadu and brought the driver Krishnamoorthy and the Tata Sumo Car back to Kadayanallur.
(iii) On 28.11.2005 at about 04.00 p.m. the Inspectors of Aralvaimozhi and Kadayanallur Police Stations along with police personnel had come to the petitioner's house and taken her husband into custody. In the midnight, they also brought her brother, her sister's husband and herself to Aralvoimozhi Police Station and obtained statements against her husband illegally and they did not sent her husband. Then, she approached the police, but they did not inform about her husband. Hence, she approached this Court in H.C.P.No.223 of 2006 and the same was closed in view of the submission made by the Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station that he registered a Man Missing case in Crime No.391 of 2006. Then, she approached the higher official through representations, the case was transferred to C.B.C.I.D.
(iv) On investigation, C.B.C.I.D. examined 12 witnesses and recorded their statements under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Senkottai on 12.04.2007. From their statements, she found that her husband was tortured and murdered by police personnel. But, the second respondent did not take any action. Hence, she approached this Court by filing a petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12376 of 2007 and this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram to conduct the enquiry under Police Standing Order 151 and submit his final report before this Court on 02.01.2008. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted his enquiry report before this Court on 23.04.2008. But till now no action was taken against the proposed accused and the same would aid the real accused to go scot-free from the clutches of law. Hence, the petitioner prays for the withdrawal of the case in Crime No.391 of 2006 on the file of the third respondent and entrust the same to the fourth respondent/C.B.I. for investigation and file the final report.
3. The fourth respondent had filed the counter, which would run as follows:
The case was transferred to CBCID as per the orders of the Director General of Police, Chennai and as per the direction of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12376 of 2007, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram conducted enquiry and submitted his report before this Court on 23.04.2008. Hence, two different agencies in Police Department have investigated this case and also an Executive Magistrate have completed the enquiry. As per the dictum laid down by Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of filing a writ petition or petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in the matter and relegate the petitioner to his alternative remedy. Hence, the petition may be dismissed in the interest of justice.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.11684 of 2007:
4. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking for a direction (i) to the third respondent police to implement the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.3854 of 2007 dated 25.04.2007 and also (ii) to direct the third respondent to hand over the investigation in Crime No.391 of 2006 to the Central Bureau of Investigation or to any other Investigating Agency. This Court passed an order on 26.11.2007 in respect of the first prayer and the petition is kept pending in respect of second prayer.
5. The reasons stated for by the petitioner are briefly stated as follows: The petitioner is working as a Head Constable in the Police Department. The petitioner was wrongly implicated in the case registered at Aaralvoimozhi Police Station for safeguarding some police personnel. The third respondent CBCID recorded some statements by falsely implicating some of the police officers to help their own subordinates and they helped them to escape from the liability. In the meantime, one S.J.S.Thiruselvam has filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.3854 of 2007 praying to hand over the investigation to the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram for conducting enquiry as per Police Standing Order 151. After hearing both sides, this Court has allowed the petition and directed the first respondent therein to entrust the investigation to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram. Despite the order passed by this Court, the first respondent had failed to obey the same. Hence, this petition seeking for a direction to the third respondent police to implement the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.3854 of 2007 dated 25.04.2007 and also to direct the third respondent to hand over the investigation in Crime No.391 of 2006 to the Central Bureau of Investigation or to any other Investigating Agency.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.12376 of 2007:
6. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/aggrieved person seeking for the withdrawal of the case in Crime No.391 of 2006 on the file of the third respondent and to entrust the same to the fourth respondent police for investigation and to file the final report.
7. The brief facts stated by the petitioner are as follows as in the petition:
(i) The petitioner's husband viz., Mohammed Masud was doing chit fund business in their locality and met with substantial loss because of several defaulters and regarding the non-payment of the chit amount, few subscribers lodged criminal complaints and initiated civil suits against her husband.
(ii) It was alleged that on 27.11.2005, her husband and one Kalyani had arranged a Tata Sumo car owned by one Kudib Meera Hussain for rent and one Krishnamoorthy was engaged as driver. They picked up three persons at Edaikal and they dropped two persons at Tenkasi and went to Nagercoil and picked up two more persons. While they were proceeding to Trivandrum, they stopped the vehicle near one Bungalow at Nedumangadu Village and they went into the bungalow along with the driver. The four persons secretly made deliberations and tied the driver Krishnamoorthy with a rope. Then the three persons drove away the vehicle and returned after six hours. Thereafter they released the driver and gave some sum. Then, the driver informed the said incident to his owner and the owner lodged a complaint before the police and based on that complaint, the Inspector Ravichandran and his sleuth went to Nedumangadu and brought the driver Krishnamoorthy and the Tata Sumo Car back to Kadayanallur.
(iii) On 28.11.2005 at about 04.00 p.m. the Inspectors of Aralvaimozhi and Kadayanallur Police Stations along with police personnel had come to the petitioner's house and taken her husband into custody. In the midnight, they also brought her brother, her sister's husband and herself to Aralvoimozhi Police Station and obtained statements against her husband illegally and they did not sent her husband. Then, she approached the police, but they did not inform about her husband. Hence, she approached this Court in H.C.P.No.223 of 2006 and the same was closed in view of the submission made by the Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station that he registered a Man Missing case in Crime No.391 of 2006. Then, she approached the higher official through representations, the case was transferred to C.B.C.I.D.
(iv) On investigation, C.B.C.I.D. examined 12 witnesses and recorded their statements under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Senkottai on 12.04.2007. From their statements, she found that her husband was tortured and murdered by police personnel. But, the second respondent did not take any action. Hence, she approached this Court by filing a petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12376 of 2007 and this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram to conduct the enquiry under Police Standing Order 151 and submit his final report before this Court on 02.01.2008. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted his enquiry report before this Court on 23.04.2008. But till now no action was taken against the proposed accused and the same would aid the real accused to go scot-free from the clutches of law. Hence, the petitioner prays for the withdrawal of the case in Crime No.391 of 2006 on the file of the third respondent and entrust the same to the fourth respondent/C.B.I. for investigation and file the final report.
8. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.7487 of 2008 and 12376 of 2007 and Mr.C.Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11684 of 2007 respectively, Mr.Siva Ayyappan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State and also Mr.Rozario Sundarraj, learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. Cases.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three applications would commonly submit that the case was registered by the third respondent police in the year 2006 and the investigation is not completed so far, despite directions given by this Court. In an earlier occasion, this Court had passed an order on 25.04.2007 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.3854 of 2007 to hand over the investigation by the third respondent police to the Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram for enquiry to be conducted under Police Standing Order 151 and to proceed further in the case registered in Crime No.391 of 2006 and the same was not obeyed by the third respondent police and therefore the petitioner had to resort to another petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11684 of 2007 seeking to implement the said order of this Court by the third respondent and also seeking for transfer of investigation from the file of the third respondent to the fourth respondent viz., Central Bureau of Investigation. The third respondent police has not acted promptly and the aggrieved person/petitioner had to file Crl.O.P(MD)No.12376 of 2007 seeking for transfer of the case from the file of the third respondent to the fourth respondent for investigation and the third respondent police was directed to hand over the Case Diary file to the Revenue Divisional Officer for the purpose of conducting enquiry under Police Standing Order 151 and to file the report on 02.01.2008.
10. It is further submitted that the third respondent had reluctantly handed over the file to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram and he had conducted enquiry under Police Standing Order 151 and filed his report before this Court on 23.04.2008. Thereafter the third respondent had not proceeded with the further investigation and therefore the investigation has to be transferred from the file of the third respondent to the file of the fourth respondent. They would further submit that the lethargy and slackness in the investigation on the part of the third respondent police would certainly lead to the fading of evidence and the accused, who are the police personnel will escape from the clutches of law. Therefore, it could be considered as rarest rare case for the purpose of passing an order of transfer of investigation from the file of the third respondent to the fourth respondent.
11. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit in his argument that the third respondent is ready to proceed with the investigation and to complete the same and to file the final report in a specified time. He would further submit that since the Case Diary File was handed over to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram for the purpose of conducting enquiry under Police Standing Order 151, they had to await the file for doing further investigation and filing the final report after the enquiry. He would also submit in his argument that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram was submitted only on 23.04.2008 and the Government had also passed an order directing the Revenue Divisional Officer in G.O.Ms.No.1322/Public (L&O-E) dated 27.11.2008 and recommended the District Collector, Kanyakumari District to launch both criminal and departmental action against the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11684 of 2007 and ten others and to take necessary action to file a criminal complaint before the competent Court of jurisdiction against the same police personnel and accordingly departmental action were taken against them. Further the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram had launched a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil on 02.03.2009 and thereafter only, the Case Diary file was handed over to the third respondent for doing further investigation.
12. He would further submit in his argument that a clarification was obtained from the Government regarding the continuance of investigation, since parallel proceedings have been launched by the Collector as per the direction of the Government and it was clarified by the Government through its letter No.1630/L&O-E/2008-8 dated 11.02.2009 that the CBCID may also proceed with the investigation and file a final report. Since, in view of the order passed by the Government to proceed parallelly and after obtaining clarification from the Government, the Case Diary file was received by the third respondent and the Investigating Officer had visited Kadayanallur and examined seven witnesses on 01.04.2009. Thereafter also, the Investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence of Keeriparai Police Station and examined three witnesses and some more documents are to be collected and the investigation is in progress and therefore there is no need for transfer of investigation at this stage.
13. He would also draw the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1614 to the effect that the change of Investigating Officer in the mid-stream and appoint any agency of its own choice may not be one of the unfettered discretions of the Court. He would further submit that this is not a case, in which the inherent powers of the Court conferred under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be utilized for the purpose of transferring the investigation from the file of the third respondent to the fourth respondent.
14. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. cases would submit in his argument that the two agencies in Police Department have already investigated this case and an Executive Magistrate also completed the enquiry under Police Standing Order 151 and the circumstances submitted by the petitioners do not warrant any change of investigation. He would also submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that the High Court should not encourage the practice of seeking for transfer of investigation under the writ jurisdiction or under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. without relegating to the alternative remedy. He would also cite an authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 309. However, he would submit that in the event of a direction has been issued by this Court ordering the transfer of the investigation to the fourth respondent, it is ready to abide to the direction of this Court.
15. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments submitted by either side. For better understanding of the case, we should go through the sequence of filing of petitions before this Court by the petitioners. The petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11684 of 2007 is one of the accused, against whom also, the case has been registered in Crime No.391 of 2006 on the file of the third respondent and the investigation is pending. He had filed the said petition, seeking to implement the order passed by this Court dated 25.04.2007 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.3854 of 2007 and also for a direction to the third respondent to hand over the investigation in Crime No.391 of 2006 to the C.B.I. or any other Investigating Agency. The petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.3854 of 2007 was filed by him earlier and this Court had passed an order on 25.04.2007 directing the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, Omandur, Government Estate, Chennai - 4, the first respondent therein to go through the petition dated 23.03.2007 of the petitioner and after hearing the witnesses to take a decision in accordance with the Police Standing Order 151 and to act in accordance with law. In the subsequent petition filed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11684 of 2007, this Court had passed an order directing the third respondent to entrust the investigation to the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District within ten days for the purpose of doing enquiry under Police Standing Order 151 in respect of the case registered in Crime No.391 of 2006. While passing such order, the relief sought for by the petitioner seeking for the transfer of the investigation from the third respondent to C.B.I. was kept pending. On the same day, this court had disposed another petition filed by one Hasan Ammal, the petitioner/aggrieved person seeking for the transfer of the investigation from the file of the respondent therein to the file of the C.B.I., by dismissing the same with liberty to file a fresh petition after completion of enquiry as per the Police Standing Order 151, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram. In consequence of the said order, the said petitioner/aggrieved person has filed the petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7487 of 2008 seeking for the same relief of transfer of investigation from the third respondent to the fourth respondent. After the passing of directions by this Court on various occasions, the Case Diary file was handed over by the third respondent to the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District and he had also conducted the enquiry under Police Standing Order 151 and had submitted his report before this Court. Similarly, he had complied with the ingredients of the Police Standing Order 151 and accordingly a report was submitted by him before the Government for further action. The Government after appraising and scrutinizing the report of the Revenue Divisional officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District to the effect of finding guilty of eight police personnel for the offence mentioned therein had directed the District Collector to launch both criminal action and disciplinary proceedings against them, as in G.O.Ms.No.1322/Public (L&O-E) dated 27.11.2008. It is also made known to the Court that the Revenue Divisional Officer has presented a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil on the basis of the said direction given in the aforesaid G.O. by the Government dehors the investigation in Crime No.391 of 2006 is pending before the third respondent. The Revenue Divisional Officer had filed the report after the completion of enquiry and accordingly the report with the papers containing evidence recorded by him were submitted. The Government had also passed an order directing the CBCID viz., the third respondent to proceed further investigation. There is no dispute that both the complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the investigation pending before the third respondent arise upon the same cause of action. The grievances of the petitioner is that the investigation was not promptly done by the third respondent and therefore it has to be transferred to the file of C.B.I.
16. At this stage, we have to see whether the investigation pending before the third respondent could be transferred to the file of C.B.I. for the reasons submitted by the petitioner. According to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1614, the following passage would guide us to find out the circumstances under which transfer of investigation could be ordered. "The investigation of an offence is the filed exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chap.XII of the Code. However, unfettered discretion does not mean any unaccountable or unlimited discretion and act accordingly to one's own choice. The High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot change the Investigating Officer in the mid-stream and appoint any agency of its own choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis and more particularly on the basis of complaints or anonymous petitions addressed to a named Judge. Such communications cannot be converted into suo motu proceedings for setting the law in motion. Neither the accused nor the complainant or informant are entitled to choose their own investigating agency to investigate a crime in which they may be interested".
17. The investigation in this case is no doubt pending for a longer period from the year 2006. Admittedly, the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer was filed into the Court recently and that too after repeated orders passed by this Court. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer is a legal requisite as per Police Standing Order 151 and it is finding fault with certain accused police personnel in respect of certain offences. In accordance of the provisions of Police Standing Order 151, the Government has also passed order in G.O.Ms.No.1322/Public (L&O-E) dated 27.11.2008 directing the District Collector to launch criminal prosecution before the competent Court. The long pendency of the investigation at the hands of the third respondent was not justified in the said G.O. However the third respondent was directed to continue the investigation, in a separate letter of Government. After receiving the report from the Revenue Divisional Officer of Padmanabhapuram, the third respondent is proceeding with the investigation by examining the petitioner/aggrieved person also along with the other witnesses. No doubt, the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer points lesser offences towards the police personnel and does not include
Section 302 and
201 I.P.C. as registered in Crime No.391 of 2006. The mere omission of sections in the report of the Revenue Divisional officer will not make the Investigating Officer not to pursue or to collect evidence in respect of those offences. It is for the Investigating Agency to consider the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer as one of the pieces of evidence, since the case has been registered even prior to the reference of the complaint to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Police Standing Order 151.
18. In the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 309, the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down the dictum as follows:
"31. No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation by the CBI vide CBI vs. State of Rajasthan and another (supra), but this Court or the High Court has power under
Article 136 or
Article 226 to order investigation by the CBI. That, however should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them".
19. The same position of law was laid down by yet another earlier Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar and another v. A.C.Saldanna and another reported in AIR 1980 SC 326. In the said Judgment, another Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.N.Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari reported in (1970)3 SCR 946 noted as follows:
"... the Court should be quite loathe to interfere at the stage of investigation, a field of activity reserved for police and the executive. It would be advantageous to extract what this Court observed in S.N.Sharma's case: "It appears to us that, though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the police unfettered power to investigate all cases where they suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, in appropriate cases an aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking the power of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution under which, if the High Court could be convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by a police officer mala fide, the High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus restraining the police officer from misusing his legal powers".
20. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the parties and the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgments, the investigation and detection of crime, which is a domain of executives and the Investigating Agency need not be interfered by the judiciary without any finding of mala fide on the part of such agencies. Moreover, it is also laid down that the transfer of investigation can be done by the High Court only under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in rare and exceptional cases. The Government had passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.1322/Public (L&O-E) dated 27.11.2008 directing the District Collector to pursue criminal complaint on the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer had also filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil in obedience to the said G.O. and the complaint is also pending. Therefore, two parallel proceedings are pending for the same cause of action. The petitioners have not stated anything regarding the steps taken by them for clubbing both the proceedings. However, if clubbing of two cases has to be done, it should have been done only after filing of final report in this case and after taking cognizance of the final report by the competent Court. In the meanwhile, the submission of the third respondent would go to show that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer was considered as one of the pieces of evidence and subsequent investigation is being carried on. In these circumstances, I do not find any mala fide on the part of the third respondent in doing the investigation. Moreover the investigation of the case by the third respondent was delayed only by the adherence to the procedures laid down in Police Standing Order as per the direction of this Court, which is also essential to the investigation of the case. The reasons submitted by the petitioners in their petitions are not sufficient to classify their case as one of the rarest rare cases, in which the discretion of the Court with the help of the power conferred under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in their favour. It is the clear wording of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the transfer of investigation in the mid-stream and to entrust the investigation to some other agency of its own choice is not applicable. Coupled with the various dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court, when we apply the facts of this case, we could find that there is no mala fide shown on the part of the third respondent to classify the case as one of the rarest rare case. Therefore, I do not find any reason for ordering transfer of the investigation from the file of the third respondent to the fourth respondent viz., C.B.I. Hence, the request for transfer of investigation from the file of the third respondent viz., C.B.C.I.D. to the fourth respondent viz., C.B.I. is not possible in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12376 of 2007. However, it has become necessary for this Court to pass a direction to the third respondent to expedite the investigation and to file a final report as early as possible, since the case is of the year 2006. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.11684 and 12376 of 2007 are also dismissed.
smn To
1.The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shastri Bhawan, Nungampakkam, Chennai.
5.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District.
6.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District.
7.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli.
8.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.