Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Roselet Amirthabai vs The Superintendent Of Police

Madras High Court|25 July, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This petition is filed for a direction to direct the first respondent to pass an order to third respondent or any other competent officer to reinvestigate and file a final report in crime No.804 of 2015 pending on the file of second respondent.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
2.1. The petitioner is the mother of one Thenisha. The married of the petitioner's daughter with one, Jestin was held on 11.02.2008. It is alleged by the petitioner that her son-in-law developed illegal intimacy with another women and that therefore, he started harassing the petitioner's daughter. However, it is stated by the petitioner that her son-in-law has also tortured her daughter and demanding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was in this circumstances, the petitioner's daughter died on 14.12.2015 in a suspicious circumstances. Since the second respondent, who investigated the case is about to close the criminal case, which was earlier registered under Section 174 CPC, the petitioner made a representation seeking for transfer of investigation to some other officer to get justice.
2.2. Even earlier, the same petitioner filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.15969 of 2016, directing to withdraw the entire case in Crime No.804 of 2015 on the file of the respondents 4 and 5 and to handover the same to the sixth respondent/ Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., or any other competent agency to investigate the case and file a final report within a stipulated time. This Court, after recording the statement of learned Government Advocate, that the enquiry conducted in Crime No.804 of 2015 was closed as dropped on 11.02.2016. It was thereafter the petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition and specifically pointing out that the closure report is illegal, which reads as follows :
?ehd; Ma;thsh; (gl;lhzp) ,e;j tof;F Nfhg;gpid vdJ tprhuizf;F vLj;Jf; nfhz;L ,we;j egh;fspd; gpNujj;ij gpNuj mWit ghpNrhjid Nkw;nfhz;l kUj;Jth;fis tprhhpj;J 161(3) Cr.P.C. thf;F%yk; gjpT nra;jjpYk;> VNjh nrbfSf;F njspf;Fk; G+r;rp kUe;ij mUe;jpAs;shh; vd njhpa te;Js;sJ. NkYk; vdJ Gyd; tprhuizapYk; ,we;J Nghd njdp\h vd;gth; tPL itj;j fld; ,Ue;jjhYk; typg;G Nehapd; fhuzkhfTk; G+r;rp kUe;ij jdf;F jhNd jhDk; mUe;jp jdJ ,uz;L Foe;ijfSf;Fk; nfhLj;Js;shh; ,jpy; jdJ %j;j kfs; cahp gpioj;Js;shh;. njdp\hTk; mtUila ,isa kfSk; ,we;Js;shh;fs;. ahUila J}z;LjyhNyh> tw;GWj;jyhNyh nfhLikapdhNyh tp\k; mUe;jpajhf njhpatpy;iy. ,wg;gpy; vt;tpj re;NjfKk; ,y;iy. MfNt ,t;tof;fpid epYitapy; itj;jpUg;gjhy; muRf;F vt;tpj gpuNah[dKk; ,y;iy vdNt ,t;tof;F tprhuizia Kbj;J AD vd FiwT nra;AkhW Ntz;bf; nfhs;fpNwd;?.
2.3 In the report, the Inspector of Police, refers to the statement of the doctors, who have conducted autopsy. It is seen from the report that the doctors who have conducted autopsy have stated in clear terms that the postmortem was concluded on 2 P.M. on 15.12.2015. The opinion given by the doctors is reserved, in view of the fact that report of chemical analyst has not been arrived. Therefore, even without a postmortem report, the criminal case has been closed. This is un-acceptable and inappropriate. This Court need not elaborate the other aspects of the case, as this matter needs further investigation. This Court is fully convinced that the closure report of the Inspector of Police is unsustainable and the matter requires further investigation.
3. Having regard to the facts narrated above, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Original Petition with the following directions :-
3.1. The first respondent is directed to pass order appointing or directing any other competent officer to reinvestigate the case in Crime No.804 of 2015, pending before the second respondent and the second respondent shall handover the entire files relating to the investigation enquired in Crime No.804 of 2015, to the officer or the competent authority who shall be appointed or directed by the first respondent to hold further investigation.
4. With the above directions, the Criminal original Petition is allowed.
To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Kanyakumari District, .
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Roselet Amirthabai vs The Superintendent Of Police

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
25 July, 2017