L.Rajabathar v. STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.10.2008 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAMCriminal Original Petition No.10565 of 2008L.Rajabathar... Petitioner-Vs.-STATE by the Inspector of PolicePattinapakkam Police StationPattinapakkam, Chennai... RespondentCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the CriminalProcedure Code to order reinvestigation of the case in Crime No.229of 2002 on the file of the respondent herein.For Petitioner : Mr.R.VijayakumarFor Respondent : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)- - -O R D E RThe above Criminal Original Petition has been filed underSection 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking for a directionfor reinvestigation of the case in Crime No.229 of 2002 on the fileof the respondent. 2. The petitioner lodged a written complaint before therespondent on 12.03.2002 stating that his son L.R.Paranthaman hadmarried one Nalini, D/o. Dakshinamurthy on 19.02.1999; they livedtogether for a short time and thereafter due to misunderstandingsthey got themselves separated and Nalini left for her parental home;thereafter she had filed a divorce petition in the Family Court andthe said petition was pending; due to grief caused by the separationof his wife and due to the mental stress and due to the appearance inthe Court his son appeared tired in the previous day and he wasmissing thereafter and on the morning of 12.03.2002 on informationreceived that a dead body of a male was found near the sea-shore; hewent and saw the body and identified the same as that of his son andon the aforesaid allegations he requested the respondent to conductthe enquiry and hand-over the body.3. On the basis of the said complaint a case in Crime No.229 of2002 had registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C.; investigation wastaken up by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattinapakkam PoliceStation, Pattinapakkam, Chennai; The Sub-Inspector of Police went to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the scene of occurrence and inquest was conducted in the presence ofthe Panchayatdhars and witnesses and after the inquest, the dead bodywas sent to the Government Royapettah General Hospital, Chennai, forpost-mortem and on the same day the following persons namely, thepetitioner, his wife-Yamuna Devi, Jaganathan, Nalini, W/o-thedeceased-L.R.Paranthaman, Vijayalakshmi-mother-in-law of thedeceased, were examined and their statements recorded; on 04.04.2002the Investigating Officer enquired the Doctor-R.Bhaskar who conductedthe post-mortem on the dead body and recorded his statement;according to the opinion of the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, the deceased would appeared to have died of asphyxia due todrowning with insecticide (Carbonate) poisoning; accordingly therespondent submitted a final report on 15.04.2002 to the Tahsildar,Triplicane-Mylapore Taluk, Chennai – 28 and further action wasdropped; since the materials collected during the course ofinvestigation reveal that because of the pendency of the divorce casebefore the Family Court, Chennai, and family problem and the illnessof the deceased he wanted to end his life and he himself decided tocommit suicide.4. In such circumstances, though on 27.03.2002 itself thepetitioner had given a complaint to the respondent alleging thatNalini W/o.- the deceased-L.R.Paranthaman had engaged rowdy elementswith the aid and advice of her mother-Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, abducted thepetitioner’s son-L.R.Paranthaman on 11.03.2002 and he was done todeath at Pattinapakkam, Chennai, no action was taken and hence thepetitioner’s wife filed Crl.O.P.No.8635 of 2002 before this Courtseeking for a direction to register a case, but the same wasdismissed by an order dated 04.02.2008 on the basis of therepresentation made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor thatit was a case of accidental death. According to the petitioner therespondent has not conducted proper investigation and hence it isjust and proper to order re-investigation by some other agency.4. The respondent has filed a counter statement denying thevarious allegations contained in the petition and setting out indetail the various steps taken in the course of investigation. It isstated in the counter statement that the petitioner himself earlierfiled Crl.O.P.No.12587 of 2007 seeking for a direction to register acase under Section 302 IPC on the basis of the complaint dated27.03.2002 but the same was dismissed by an order dated 25.06.2007 asthe petitioner was called absent continuously for several hearingsbut suppressing the same the above petition has been filed.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though inthe complaint dated 12.03.2002 the petitioner had not made anyallegations against his daughter-in-law and her mother and others,subsequently when he came to know about their involvement a complaintdated 27.03.2002 was given but the respondent had not taken anyaction on that complaint. Learned counsel further submitted that asper Section 174 (1) of the Cr.P.C., the respondent ought to haveimmediately given intimation to the nearest Executive Magistrateempowered to hold the inquest, but the respondent had not admittedlysent such intimation and therefore the investigation done by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent is vitiated. He further submitted that though as per thepost-mortem certificate certain abrasions have been found on thedead-body of the deceased the respondent had not taken steps toascertain the cause of such injuries and therefore submitted thatreinvestigation should be ordered through some other agency.6. Countering the said submissions the learned GovernmentAdvocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent submitted that in the writtencomplaint dated 12.03.2007 lodged by the petitioner not even a singleallegation is found against his daughter-in-law or against hermother; not even anything is said regarding the strained relationshipbetween his son and his wife and therefore submitted that theallegations contained in the subsequent complaint dated 27.03.2002 isonly an after thought. He further submitted that though intimationwas not sent by the respondent to the Executive Magistrate as perSection 174 (1) of the Cr.P.C., after following the other procedurescontemplated therein and completing the investigation and afterascertaining the cause of death as suicide the final report wasprepared and the same was submitted to the Tahsildar, Triplicane-Mylapore Taluk and as such the provisions contained in Section 174Cr.P.C., have been substantially complied with and therefore there isabsolutely no necessity for ordering re-investigation by any otheragency. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by thelearned counsel on either side.8. As stated above the petitioner’s wife had earlier filedCrl.O.P.No.8635 of 2002 before this Court and the same came to bedismissed by a learned Judge of this Court by an order dated04.02.2003 by observing as under:-“2. ... The learned Additional Public Prosecutor reportsthat a case has been registered and investigated and itturned out to be a case of accidental death. Therefore,nothing survives in the prayer asked for by the petitioner.Petition stands dismissed”.Thereafter the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.12587 of 2007 and the samewas dismissed by an order dated 25.06.2007 by observing as under:-“Learned counsel for the petitioner called absentcontinuously for several hearings. Therefore, this Court isleft with no other alternative except to dismiss thiscriminal original petition. Accordingly, this criminaloriginal petition is dismissed for non-prosecution”.But unfortunately the filing and dismissal of Crl.O.P.No.12587 of2007 has not been mentioned in the present petition. 9. It has to be pointed out that when Crl.O.P.No.8635 of 2002came up for hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor hasreported that a case was registered and investigated and it turnedout to be a case of accidental death, the petitioner could have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sought for the relief that is sought for in the above petition butthe petitioner had failed to do so. It has to be further pointed outthat as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) in the complaint dated 12.03.2002 the petitioner has not statedthat there was misunderstandings between his son and his wife and ithas also not been stated that his daughter-in-law in connivence withher mother engaged rowdy elements to do away with the petitioner’sson. Only on the subsequent complaint on 27.03.2002 such allegationshave been made. 10. As stated in the counter statement filed by the respondentnone of the witnesses examined during the inquest nor the petitioneror his wife had stated in their statements about the said allegationsnow sought to be made against the petitioner’s daughter-in-law andher mother-in-law. The Doctor, who conducted post-morterm, had opinedthat the accused would appeared to have died of asphyxia due todrowning with insecticide (Carbonate) poisoning. Only on the basis ofthe statement of witnesses examined and the opinion of the Doctor,the respondent has come to the conclusion that it is a case ofaccidental death and the final report has also been submitted to theTahsildar, Triplicane-Mylapore Taluk.11. The failure on the part of the respondent to sendintimation to the Executive Magistrate as contemplated under Section174 (1) Cr.P.C., will not vitiate the investigation. After completingthe investigation and ascertaining the cause for death the finalreport had been sent to the Executive Magistrate as stated above,which in the considered view of this Court, substantially satisfiesthe requirements of Section 174 (1) of the Cr.P.C., This Court doesnot find any serious lapse in the investigation conducted by therespondent and finds absolutely no reason to order re-investigationby any other agency. Hence the above Criminal Original Petition failsand the same is dismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.SrkTo1. The Inspector of Police, Pattinapakkam Police Station, Pattinapakkam, Chennai2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 104+ 1 CC To Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate SR NO.57056Pre-Delivery Order in Crl.O.P.No.10565 of 2008SSK {CO}TP/21.10.08