The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to transfer of investigation in Crime No.239 of 2007 from the file of the 1st respondent to that of the 2nd respondent or any other competent investigating agency and reinvestigate the case.
2. The petitioner's contention is that he is the father of the deceased Anbu Rose, who was working as a Driver at St. Mary's School, Ambattur. The petitioner and his relatives suspected the cause of death of the deceased, Anbu Rose, since the wife of the deceased Helen, had often quarrelled with the deceased and had taken huge amounts out of the savings of the deceased and lent the same to her friends. Further, the wife of the deceased had extramarital affairs with one Gopi and one Shankar and used to go out with them on their Motor cycles. The deceased used to warn his wife Helen not to indulge too much with Gopi and Shankar. The wife of the deceased, often had said that she would do away with the deceased, for her peace of mind. On 11.09.2005, at about 07.30AM, the said Shankar and one Govindaraj had compelled the deceased and took him to a nearby place of worship. Thereafter, he was found dead near the railway track. Regarding the death of Anbu Rose, the case was registered by the 1st respondent in Crime No.239 of 2005 under
Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the petitioner was not satisfied with the respondents police investigation. Hence he sent a representation to the higher Police officials, Chief Minister's Cell and Railway Police, etc., for necessary action. Further, in support of his petition, he has filed Death Report, Post Mortem Certificate, F.I.R. Copy, etc.
3. The respondent police registered a case and the ingredients of the FIR disclosed that on 12.09.2005, at about 08.00AM, a dead body of a male was found near Loco Railway Station. The dead body was found by one Kumar, along with Keyman and Balaji. And on his report, the case was registered in Crime No.239 of 2005 under
Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the respondent. The inquest was conducted and body sent for post mortem and opinion of the panchayatdars at the time of inquest was recorded. The deceased must have been hit by a fast train while crossing the track in a careless manner and with a preoccupied mind. Post mortem report also opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries sustained. Thereafter, the body was given to the relatives and buried.
4. The Learned Counsel for the state submitted that complaint was closed on the basis of report by Railway Authorities for which the Railway Authorities submitted statements in the name of (1) Kumar (2) Balaji (3) Govindaraj (4) Sankar (5) Das (6) Joseph and (7) Helen, Wife of the deceased.
5. Considering the contents of the statements of above persons and arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the State, and argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is of the view that the respondent Police duly conducted enquiry, collected statements from all the suspects including the wife of the deceased and prepared the inquest report in the presence of Panchayatdars, Post mortem Report and sought medical opinion and had also considered the findings of the Railway Police and the 1st respondent had only then submitted the final report on 10.01.2006, and closed the case.
6. When matters stand in such a way, the Court is not inclined to transfer the case from the 1st respondent's file to the 2nd respondent or any other agency. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No. 24180 of 2007 is dismissed.