The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition No.22229 of 2007 for direction to transfer the case in Crime No.205 of 2007 on the file of J-8, Nilangarai Police Station to the file of the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, CBCID, Egmore, Chennai-8.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner lodged a complaint with the third respondent police stating that her daughter namely Sharmila married one Khader Basha, on 04.07.2005. At the time of marriage, the petitioner gave Seethanas, 25 Sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.30,000/- cash besides house hold articles. After marriage, the said Khader Basha, husband of the deceased and his parents caused cruelty and torture to the deceased and had demanded dowry of a sum of Rs.one lakh. The same was informed to the petitioner herein. The petitioner also had pacified the deceased and consoled her by saying that she would arrange the said amount. Further, the petitioner alleged that her deceased daughter had got a seven months old male baby and that the baby is now in the custody and proper care of the petitioner.
3. The deceased daughter of the petitioner has been continuously harassed by the husband of the deceased, Khader Basha and his family members. The deceased was unable to tolerate the torture of the in-laws and so she informed the petitioner of the said torture over phone. On 02.03.2007, the petitioner received a phone call from the Land Lord of the deceased house, informing her to hurry up and come to the deceased house. Accordingly, she and others rushed to the deceased place and found that her daughter Sharmila was burnt completely but in a conscious state. At that time, the deceased in-laws and her husband and other persons were present but for more than one hour they did not take any steps to arrange for medical treatment of the deceased daughter. When the petitioner and others questioned the deceased regarding the occurrence, the deceased had replied that her husband had poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Thereafter, the deceased was taken by Ambulance to the hospital, wherein the doctor questioned the deceased about the incident. The deceased had disclosed that her husband and his family members poured kerosene on her and set her aflame. Thereafter, in spite of medical treatment, she died.
4. The petitioner further alleged that the respondent police then had rushed to the hospital and made an enquiry. Subsequently revenue authorities also had conducted an enquiry. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not given full audience to make full disclosure of facts to the police officers. The police officers had soft corner for the accused and ignored her plea for full disclosure of facts.
5. The petitioner further alleged that the Revenue Officials further directed the police officers to enquire into the correct cause of death, indicating that it was a case of dowry ill-treatment. The petitioner has further alleged that the 2nd respondent herein, who is in charge of investigation, altered the FIR from offence under
Section 309 of IPC to
Section 498-A and
304-B of IPC, but the petitioner has alleged that it was intentional murder on the part of the first accused and others. The petitioner has further alleged that the police had not shown proper interest to take proper steps in the investigation of the case. Further, the petitioner has alleged that independent witnesses, who had accompanied her to the deceased place, were not enquired by the police officers. On 29.06.2007, the petitioner made a representation to the Higher police officials regarding the incident. Further, the accused persons still possess the jewels and other articles given by her, to her deceased daughter and grandson. The said occurrence was also published in the newspapers. The petitioner has further alleged that the respondent police had taken an unjustifiable stance against the petitioner without showing anxiety to bring the offenders into the clutches of law. The petitioner further alleged that the performance of respondent police has been unfair and unjustifiable. Further, it is alleged that the respondent police is not honest and had not shown any interest in this case. Hence, the petitioner has filed this direction petition. Supporting her petition, she has filed 11 documents, to establish her case.
6. After perusal of the contents of the petition and connected documents, the Court is of the view that no effective steps were taken by the Respondent/police to establish the prosecution case, before the Court of law. Now, the aggrieved person has pointed out in her petition that she had lost confidence on the respondent/police on various grounds.
7. Under the circumstances, the Court decides to allow the petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No. 22229 of 2007 is allowed and this Court directs the transfer of the file in Crime No.205 of 2007 on the file of J-8, Nilangarai Police Station to the file of Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, CBCID, Egmore, Chennai-8 for further investigation.
mps/mra To
1. The City Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, In-charge of Nilangarai police Station, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police, J-8, inspector of Police, Nilangarai Police Station, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, CBCID, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 104