The main legal point established is the court's authority to order a transfer of investigation to an independent agency for a fresh/de-novo investigation when the previous investigation is found to be inadequate or lacking credibility.

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. The writ petitioner is the appellant and he filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 8160/2009, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to conduct fresh investigation and inquiry in Crime No. 398/2007 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruchengode Town Police Station, Thiruchengode under Section 174 of CrPC and the said writ petition, after contest, came to be dismissed on 21.03.2012 and aggrieved by the same, has field this writ appeal.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner is the father of a girl by name N. Divya and she was undergoing Plus one (+1) in Vidya Vikas Higher Secondary School (For Girls), Thiruchengode, Namakkal District and she stayed in the hostel of the school and continued her studies. The petitioner would further state that the school run by the fifth respondent was reopened on 25.06.2007 and her daughter contacted her parents through phone in husky voice stating that the rooms in the hostel did not have proper ventilation facilities and more particularly in Room No. 507 where she was staying, there was no fans and has only one window and the inmates were not allowed to open the window and more than 16 students were compelled to occupy a room measuring less than 100 sq.ft. and further reported that there were no enough bathrooms and sometimes she used to take bath in the toilet.

3. On 01.07.2007, the parents of the girl, namely the appellant and his wife, visited the school and on seeing the parents, their daughter hugged them and cried and it was sarcastically commented by the Warden of the hostel, namely Amudha. The appellant also sought permission of the hostel authorities to keep a pedestal fan in the room of his daughter and it was refused and sometime thereafter, the girl came back to Chennai and went back to school on 16.07.2007 and asked her parents to see her on 22.07.2007-an holiday and also a visitor’s day. The appellant/writ petitioner would further state that his daughter, during the course of her holidays from 09.07.2007 to 15.07.2007, made series of complaints against the way in which the hostel of the school is being maintained as well as the poor infrastructure prevailing in the said school.

4. On 16.07.2007, the appellant received a phone call at about 11.30 p.m from the hostel authorities of the sixth respondent school informing that his daughter has fainted and she was taken to a private hostel and was asked to contact the Chief Warden and immediately, he contacted the Chief Warden, who informed the appellant that she was taking her daughter to a local hospital and refused to reveal the name of the hospital and the appellant and his wife took a decision to proceed to Thiruchengode and thereafter, they were informed that her daughter had expired. The appellant reached the Thiruchengode Government Hospital where the body of her daughter was kept and thereafter, went to the fourth respondent Police Station and lodged an F.I.R. based on which the case in Crime No. 398/2007 was registered under Section 174 CrPC.

5. The appellant, after seeing the body of the deceased, reached the fourth respondent school at about 7.00 a.m and made enquiries and was informed by the Headmistress Ms. Jayasree that his daughter had fainted and he was also taken to the room in which she fainted and fallen and on suspicion that the death of his daughter was unnatural, the appellant wanted to know the cause of the death and further, he was not allowed to contact the Chief Warden or his daughter’s classmates and roommates. The appellant would further state that their personal enquiries reveal that the Chief Warden, on the date of the death of her daughter, had severely punched his daughter and inflicted strong blows on her stomach and hip for not attending the night study and as a consequence only, she had fainted and fallen. The appellant has also contacted the fourth respondent and narrated the events and since no fruitful action wa