Writ Court can direct for reinvestigation.

(Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus, directing the CBI or CBCID to investigate the Cr.No.24/02 on the file of the Inspector of Police, B9, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai.)

S. Tamilvanan, J.

The writ petition seeking mandamus, directing CBI or CBCID to investigate the case, that was registered in Cr.No.24/02 on the file of the Inspector of Police, B9 S.S. Colony police station, Madurai has been preferred by the petitioner, mother of K.Ramesh Kumar and mother-in-law of Gayathri, who died on 06.01.2002 under mysterious circumstances.

2. Heard, Mr.V.Bhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Subramanian, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. According to the petitioner, on 07.01.2002, while herself and her husband had been to their native place, in Kerala, received information that her son Ramesh Kumar and his wife Gayathri had expired. Immediately, she rushed to Madurai, along with her husband, but she was not permitted to have a glimpse of the dead bodies of her said son and daughter-in-law, though the dead bodies were kept in the mortuary of the Hospital.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the FIR, registered by the police, wherein it is stated that on 07.01.2002, till 8 a.m., the ground floor portion of the house was found locked outside and hence, Karthikeyan, brother of the deceased Gayathri, on hearing the weeping sound of Reshma, female child of the deceased, aged about 2 ½ years, from the house, immediately, with the help of neighbours, by using Hacksaw blade, cut and removed the lock and thereby went inside the ground portion of the house, where they found Ramesh Kumar and Gayathri lying dead. On the complaint given by the brother of the deceased Ramesh Kumar, the case in Cr.No.24 of 2002 was registered by police, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently on the final report filed by the third respondent herein before the Tahsildar, Madurai South, the case was closed.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a case of homicide has been closed as suicide, without proper investigation. The very pertinent question raised in this case, is as to how was it possible for the deceased to commit suicide in the ground portion of the house, when it was found locked outside.

6. In view of the aforesaid suspicious circumstance, the petitioner has stated in her affidavit at paragraph number 14 as follows, " The Door of the house was locked, outside even as per FIR and hence there is no possibility that the persons have committed suicide." As per the sketch and observation mahazar, prepared by the police and the statement of mahazar witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, no other entrance, except the door which was found locked is stated and hence, it could not be possible for the deceased to enter into the locked room with the child for committing suicide. Had the door not been locked by the deceased, it could have been investigated and stated in the counter filed by the respondents or in the final report that, by whom, the door was locked outside, what was the nexus for the occurrence and the person who locked the door, but the same was not investigated.

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, only the following reply is available, for the vital suspicious circumstance, " The locked door of the deceased was opened by Karthikeyan, the brother of deceased Gayathri with the help of Ganapathi." There is no explanation in the counter, as to how the ground portion of the house was found locked outside.

8. We are of the considered view that the aforesaid reply given in the counter affidavit would not be a proper and satisfactory reply, for the aforesaid vital suspicious circumstance. In the final report, filed by the third respondent, before the Tahsildar, there is no reply for the scene of occurrence having been found locked outside, before the mysterious death was n