The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish prima facie evidence of unnatural circumstances in seeking a fresh investigation and the importance of following prescribed norms and procedures in the investigation and inquiry process.

1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a fresh investigation and inquiry, in respect of Crime No.398/2007, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruchengode.

3. It has been stated that the petitioner is the father of N.Divya, who had died, on 16.7.2007, while she was pursuing her plus one course, in Vidya Vikas Higher Secondary School (for Girls), Thiruchengode, Namakkal District.

4. It has been further stated that the petitioner’s daughter, N.Divya, had died, under suspicious circumstances. Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a fresh investigation and inquiry, in respect of Crime No.398/2007, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiurchengode.

5. It has been further stated that the petitioner had admitted his daughter in the fifth respondent School, on 1.6.2007. She was also admitted in the Hostel attached to the said School. As the living conditions in the Hostel were very poor, the daughter of the petitioner had been complaining about the lack of facilities in the Hostel. Therefore, Amudha, the Chief Warden of the Hostel, had started disliking, N.Divya, the daughter of the petitioner. Thereafter, she had been abusing the petitioner’s daughter, by using filthy language and had also been assaulting her, physically. While so, at 11.30 p.m., on 16.7.2007, the petitioner had been informed that she had fainted and that she had been taken to a local private Hospital. A little later, the petitioner had been informed that his daughter had died, as she had not responded to the medical treatment given to her.

6. The petitioner had further stated that, on personal enquiry, it was learnt that Amudha had beaten up his daughter, severely, for not attending the night study. Even though the petitioner’s daughter was in great pain and agony, she was not taken to the Hospital, immediately. In such circumstances, it was suspected that N.Divya had died of physical injuries caused to her by Amudha, the Chief Warden of the Hostel.

7. It had also been stated that N.Divya was a hale and healthy child. She did not have any physical complications, as alleged by the school authorities.

8. It had been further stated that when the petitioner had arrived at the School, on receiving the information about the death of his daughter, he was not allowed to make enquiries with her roommates and classmates, with regard to the death of his daughter. Further, he had not been allowed to talk to the Chief Warden of the Hostel. In such circumstances, the petitioner was under a reasonable suspicion about the nature of the death of his daughter. Therefore, the petitioner had lodged a First Information Report before the fourth respondent Police. However, no action had been taken by the respondents 1 to 4, against the respondents 5 to 7. Instead, the file relating to the death of N.Divya, the daughter of the petitioner, had been closed stating that she had died of natural causes, due to her pre-existing disease. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to make complaints before the District Collector, the Superintendent of Police and the Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal District, as well as before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission. Thereafter, the petitioner had written letters, to the authorities concerned, to furnish the necessary information, as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Thereafter, the fourth respondent had sent a reply, dated 17.10.2007, stating that the petitioner’s daughter had died only due to her pre-existing disease and the respondents 5 to 7 were in no way responsible for the death of the petitioner’s daughter.

9. It had also been stated that, on 3.10.2007, the viscera collected from the dead bo