High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.11.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAMCriminal Original Petition No.29087 of 2007Tmt. J.Jayashree.. Petitioner-Vs.-1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai – 8.2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law & Order) T.Nagar Police District, T.Nagar, Chennai – 173. The Sub-Inspector of Police (Law & Order) R-7 K.K.Nagar, Police Station, K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 784. The Station House Officer, Tada Police Station, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh5. The Central Bureau of Investigation, Rep. by Superintendent of Police, Special Crime Branch, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 90 .. RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure to transfer the investigation in Crime No.1888 of 2007pending on the file of the third respondent and Crime No.100 of 2007pending on the file of the fourth respondent to the fifth respondent /CBI and direct the fifth respondent to investigate this case and filea final report in accordance with law.For Petitioner :Mr. M.Satyanarayan, for, M/s. N.S.SivakumarFor Respondents :Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), for R-1 to R-3.Mr. P.Madha Rao, Sub-Inspector, for R-4.Mr. N.Chandrasekaran, for R-5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ - - -O R D E RThe petitioner lodged a complaint on 29.07.2007 with the thirdrespondent stating that her husband was missing from 27.07.2007 andsought for appropriate action to trace her husband-Mr.R.Narayanan.The third respondent registered a case in Crime No.1888 of 2007 for'man missing'. On 02.08.2007 the petitioner being informed by theSub-Inspector of Police attached to the fourth respondent PoliceStation that they have found a body below a culvert of Mambattu Roadon 28.07.2007 and after seeing the photograph of the body thepetitioner identified the photograph as that of her husband. Thepetitioner came to know that the fourth respondent after holdinginquest and post-mortem had buried the body of her husband on30.07.2007 itself. After due permission the body was exhumed and lastrites were performed at Sulurpet. The fourth respondent-Police hasalso registered a case in Crime No.100 of 2007 on 28.07.2007 for theoffence under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code. As per theinquest report prepared by the fourth respondent, 12 injuries werefound on the head, face and other parts of the body of thepetitioner's husband which indicate that the death was due tohomicidal violence. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no mutual co-operation between the third and fourth respondents with regard to theabove said two cases. The petitioner has stated in the petition thatboth the third and fourth respondents are not evincing any interest ininvestigating into the matter stating that the offence had not takenplace in their jurisdiction; so far the mobile phone and car of thepetitioner's husband have not been traced; no steps have been takento collect the records pertaining to the calls made and receivedthrough the mobile phone of her husband; in view of the lapses on thepart of the third and fourth respondents there is no progress at allin the investigation of the cases. On the above said grounds, thepetitioner has come before this Court seeking transfer of theinvestigation in Crime No.1888 of 2007 pending on the file of thethird respondent and in Crime No.100 of 2007 pending on the file ofthe fourth respondent to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In thecounter affidavit various steps taken by the third respondent afterregistering the case in crime No.1888 of 2007 have been set-out indetail. The third respondent has also referred to the registration ofthe case in Crime No.100 of 2007 by the fourth respondent andregarding the steps taken by the fourth respondent in the course ofinvestigation. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that thecause of action being within the jurisdiction of Tada Police Station,no parallel investigation can be conducted and the investigation has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to be pursued by the fourth respondent only. It is further statedthat the records and statements pertaining to Crime No.1888 of 2007are being forwarded to the fourth respondent and it is also statedthat in the said circumstances investigation by any specialised agencymay not advance the case any further.4. At the time of hearing of the above petition, Mr. P.Madha Rao,Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the fourth respondent-PoliceStation was present in the Court with the C.D. File. The fifthrespondent was represented by Mr. N.Chandrasekaran, learned counselfor CBI cases. The fourth respondent has produced a copy of thecommunication in R.C.No.4812/compliance/2/2007, dated 22.10.2007 sentby the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderbad to theDirector General of Police, Tamil Nadu. A perusal of the saidcommunication shows that the Director General of Police, AndhraPradesh, Hyderabad has informed the Director General of Police, TamilNadu that the case in Crime No.100 of 2007 on the file of the fourthrespondent is being transferred for further investigation to the thirdrespondent-Police and a request has been made to direct the concernedto take necessary action in the matter as the subject matter pertainsto Crime No.1888 of 2007 on the file of the third respondent and theentire C.D. file pertaining to Crime No.100 of 2007 has also beenenclosed.5. Heard Mr. M.Satyanarayanan learned counsel for the petitioner,Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) forRespondents 1 to 3, Mr.P.Madharao, Sub-Inspector, for the fourthrespondent and Mr. N.Chandrasekaran learned counsel for the CBI Casesfor the fifth respondent.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though thepetitioner's husband was missing from 27.07.2007 and the complaint waslodged on 29.07.2007 no effective steps have been taken by the thirdrespondent and though the fourth respondent has registered a case inCrime No.100 of 2007 so far no effective steps have been taken totrace the missing car and no details have been collected in respect ofthe calls made and received through the mobile phone of thepetitioner's husband; while the third respondent has taken a standthat since the body has been found within the limits of Tada PoliceStation, the fourth respondent herein, the investigation has to bedone by the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent has already takena stand that since the offence pertains to Crime No.1888 of 2007 thefurther investigation should be only conducted by the third respondentand the entire C.D. File has already been forwarded to the DirectorGeneral of Police, Tamil Nadu. According to the learned counsel, insuch circumstances, unless the investigation is entrusted to theCentral Bureau of Investigation, there is absolutely no possibilityfor carrying out any meaningful investigation in the case and the realculprits will not be brought to book and the petitioner will not get https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any justice.7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for respondents 1to 3 submitted that since the body has been found within the limits ofthe fourth respondent the investigation should be conducted only bythe fourth respondent in Crime No.100 of 2007.8. Learned counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation for thefifth respondent submitted if a direction is issued by this Courtdirecting the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over theinvestigation the same will be complied with.9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by thelearned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record.10. As is seen from the materials available on record and fromthe submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner thoughthe petitioner had lodged a complaint as early as on 27.07.2007 beforethe third respondent and subsequently the fourth respondent has alsoregistered a case in Crime No.100 of 2007 and had carried out theinvestigation to some extent no effective steps seem to have beentaken so far to trace the car belonging to the petitioner's husbandand to collect the details pertaining to the calls made and receivedthrough mobile No.98407 16531 belonging to the petitioner's husbandand the third respondent has taken a stand that the case should beinvestigated by the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent hastaken a stand that the case should be investigated by the thirdrespondent and in fact the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad, has forwarded the entire case file and the C.D. filerelating to Crime No.100 of 2007 to the Director General of Police,Tamil Nadu. In such circumstances, the petitioner is caught up in theprocedural angle between the third and fourth respondents. As rightlycontended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in suchcircumstances, the petitioner may not get real justice and nomeaningful investigation can be expected either from the thirdrespondent or from the fourth respondent. Further, since the case isinter-state crime it may not be feasible for either the thirdrespondent or the fourth respondent to effectively investigate thecase and since the investigation has to be carried out both in TamilNadu and Andhra Pradesh, if the investigation is entrusted to theCentral Bureau of Investigation, it will be easier for that Agency toinvestigate the matter effectively. Therefore in the considered viewof this Court in the interest of justice it will be just and proper toentrust the investigation in this matter to the Central Bureau ofInvestigation. 11. Accordingly, the above criminal original petition is allowedand the investigation in Crime No.1888 of 2007 pending on the file ofthe third respondent and Crime No.100 of 2007 pending on the file of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the fourth respondent are transferred to the file of the CentralBureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi - 1, for furtherinvestigation and filing of final report. Respondents 3 and 4 arehereby directed to send the entire case records relating to CrimeNo.1888 of 2007 and Crime No.100 of 2007, respectively, to theDirector of Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi - 1, within aweek from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable theDirector, Central Bureau of Investigation, to nominate a competentofficer to investigate into the said cases. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarsrk To1. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai – 8.2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law & Order) T.Nagar Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai – 173. The Sub-Inspector of Police (Law & Order) R-7 K.K.Nagar, Police Station, K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 784. The Station House Officer, Tada Police Station, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh5. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi - 1.6.The Superintendent of Police,Special Crime Branch-CBIRajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar,Chenai-90.+1cc to Mr.N.S.Sivakumar,Advocate Sr 67306KS (CO)km/22.11.Crl.O.P.No.29087 of 2007