Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 3601
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
C.S. KARNAN, J.
Aandi
Versus
The Superintendent of Police Tuticorin District, Tuticorin & Others
Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 18327 of 2013
Decided On : 18-10-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Vijayakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mrs. S. Prabha, Government Advocate.
The main legal point established is the importance of conducting a comprehensive investigation and examining relevant witnesses to establish the prosecution case.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure - 304, 201 IPC - The court directed further investigation in Crime No.511 of 2005 under Sections 304 and 201 IPC. The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive inquiry and the importance of examining relevant witnesses to establish the prosecution case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition seeking further investigation in a case related to the death of a child laborer. The court found that the initial investigation was not comprehensive and directed the transfer of the case for further investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial investigation was not thorough and emphasized the need for a comprehensive inquiry to establish the prosecution case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of the initial investigation, the need for further examination of relevant witnesses, and the nature of the deceased's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the inadequacy of the initial investigation, the importance of examining relevant witnesses, and the need for a comprehensive inquiry to establish the nature of the deceased's death.
Final Decision: The court ordered the transfer of the case for further comprehensive investigation.
The petitioner herein has filed the above criminal original petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction upon the second and third respondents herein to conduct further investigation in Crime No.511 of 2005, on the file of the third respondent herein as per the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.6088 of 2006, dated 03.03.2006, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Tuticorin.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
One Subramaniam had lodged a complaint before the third respondent Police stating that one Dinesh, son of Muthupandi, aged about 15 years, who was working as a labourer with M/s.Maries Associates. While he was working in the said factory, he was electrocuted on 07.08.2000. Immediately, he had been rushed to AVM Hospital by the Administrative Official namely A.V.M.Mani, who colluded with Dr.Lakshman and with Assistant Dayalan had burnt the dead body. This matter was not disclosed to the Police authorities.
3. After receipt of the said complaint, the third respondent Inspector of Police, Thattapparai Police Station, Tuticorin, did not take any action on the said complaint. Hence, the said Subramaniam had filed a direction petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3479 of 2005.
4. This Court, after hearing both sides, directed the third respondent Police to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 20.08.2000. The direction was given on 12.04.2005 with a condition that the case should be registered within a period of one month. However, the respondent Police after one month i.e., on 03.07.2005 registered FIR in Crime No.511 of 2005, on the file of the third respondent Police for the alleged offence under Sections 304 and 201 I.P.C.
5. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police has filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin, stating that the case has been referred as a mistake of fact and observed that the deceased had expired due to illness and he was admitted at A.V.M.Hospital, wherein he had expired after medical treatment. Hence, the respondent Police requested the learned Judicial Magistrate to close the said criminal case as a mistake of fact.
6. Not being satisfied with the report of the investigation officer, the defacto complainant had filed a protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.1688 of 2006, stating that regarding the death of Dinesh, controversial statements have arisen in the final report submitted by the investigation officer and the actual truth had not come out. Hence, he prayed to reject the final report of the investigation officer.
7. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin, on 03.03.2006, had ordered to conduct further investigation in this case by examining the required material witnesses and perusing relevant documents and file the final report.
8. Thereafter, the defacto complainant had sent a representation and mentioned 20 persons for examination to find out the death of Dinesh, even then there is no proper investigation. Therefore, the defacto complainant namely R.Subramaniam, once again approached the Court by way of a direction petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4037 of 2013, in Crime No.511 of 2005, on the file of the third respondent Police herein and prayed this Court to withdraw and transfer the investigation in Crime No.511 of 2005 from the file of the Inspector of Police, Thattapparai Police Station to the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Madurai or some other agency. While this petition is pending, the petitioner had expired. As such, the said petition has become abated.
9. The said offence, being a public crime, one Mr.Andi had sent a representation on 10.10.2013 to the third respondent herein to take necessary action in the interest of justice regarding the death of Dinesh. After receipt of the said representation, the Inspector of Police, remains silent. Therefore, the above direction petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the second and t
