C.B.I. enquiry is not to be allowed as a matter of course.

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order in so far as it relates to Clause (ii) of para 12 of order date 4-2-2005 and partly allowing in portion of the order dated 7-2-2005 in so far as para 6 of the modification order, made in Writ Petition No. 3009/2005 by Single Judge of this Court; and Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 6th respondent herein to depute a competent officer to take up the investigation of Crime No. 1221/2004 dated 19-10-2004 from the file of 5th respondent and investigate the same under the supervision of the 6th respondent and procedure as per law, also by invoking the relevant section of Indian Penal Code against the erring 3rd respondent personnel, award costs.)

P. Sathasivam, J. (Common Judgment):

Home Department of Government of Tamil Nadu and their officers, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4-2-2005 in so far as it relates to Clause (ii) of para 12, and partly allowing in portion of the order dated 7-2-2005 in so far as para 6 of the Modification Order, made in Writ Petition No. 3009/2005, have filed Writ Appeal No. 479 of 2005.

2. Muthulakshmi, wife of Munusamy Veerappan, Puthuchampally, Mettur Dam-2, Salem District, has filed Writ Petition No. 3009/2005 praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing 6th respondent-Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Haddows Road, Chennai-6 to depute a competent officer to take up the investigation of Crime No. 1221 of 2004 dated 19-10-2004 from the file of 5th respondent-Station House Officer, Kolathur Police Station, Dharmapuri District and investigate the same under the supervision of 6th respondent i.e., C.B.I as per law against the third respondent-Additional Director General of Police, Special Task Force, Sathiyamangalam, Erode District.

3. Inasmuch as the Writ Appeal filed by the Government is against an interim direction pending disposal of the main writ petition and in view of the fact that both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are taken up together for disposed, let us consider the case of the writ petitioner, namely, Muthulakshmi. According to her, the Special Task Force allegedly killed her husband deceased Munusamy Veerappan (hereinafter referred to as "Veerappan") along with his three accomplices in an encounter at Padi in Dharmapuri District. The Tamil Nadu Police had tortured her husband in the year 1985. Therefore, he escaped from their custody into the forest. Though the citizens of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and Kerala heaved a sigh of relief at the elimination of her husband, Veerappan, the sequence of events that lead to shoot out and the death of her husband, has caused suspicion in the minds of well informed persons and enlightened citizens. The Chief of the Special Task Force of Karnataka Mr. Jyothi Prakash Mirji has stated that whether Veerappan committed suicide would be probed, and thus there is an element of suspicion in the death of Veerappan and his accomplices at the hand of Special Task Force of Tamil Nadu. Though four persons, including her husband were killed in an alleged encounter on 18-10-2004, a case was filed in Crime No. 1221/2004 under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under Sections 307, 323 I.P.C., read with Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act and 4 (b) of Explosive Substance Act against her husband and three others, the fifth respondent has not deliberately registered F.I.R. under Section 302 I.P.C. against the third respondent herein, subsequently who are all involved in the murder of her husband and 3 others.

4. It is further stated that though the suspicion over the death of her husband is not yet cleared, there are so many contradictions in the statements of Mr. Vijayakumar, I.P.S., Chief of Special Task Force, Tamil Nadu, who claimed that her husband was killed in an encounter and in the statement of Mr. Jothi Prakash Mirji, Chief of Special Task Force,