Point of law: that it is for the Magistrate to exercise the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., after the filing of the final report and the learned Single Judge, keeping the well-settled principle that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot usurp the power of the Magistrate Court, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the police investigation was very extremely casual, perfunctory and shoddy in nature, rightly dismissed the writ petition, in the terms indicated above. When the learned Magistrate dismissed the protest petition filed by the appellant, the only course available to the appellant is to challenge the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the manner known to law and at this stage, as stated above, this Court cannot usurp the power of the criminal Court.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order dated 05.09.2012 in W.P.(MD)No.1971 of 2012 on the file this Court.)

1. The Writ Petitioner is the appellant in this Writ Appeal. He questioned the correctness of the order dated 05.09.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1971 of 2012.

2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking for a direction of transfer of the case in Crime No.90 of 2012 from the file of the fifth respondent to the file of the Central Bureau of Investigation/the fourth respondent for investigation and for filing the final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within a specified time. The case was registered on the basis of his complaint dated 09.02.2012 for the death of his own son.

3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and considering all the materials placed before the Court, which includes a detailed report dated 28.05.2012 filed by the third respondent, dismissed the writ petition holding thus:

"29. In this case, both sides made submissions on the basis of the pleadings, but since the investigation is pending, this Court is not inclined to render any findings on merits of the contentions raised regarding the circumstances relating to the death of the petitioner's son, as it may affect the course of the investigation and rights of the parties.

30. In the light of the above factual matrix and the legal precedents referred to above, there is no case made out to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition will stand dismissed. The 5th respondent is at liberty to complete the investigation and to file his final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate."

3.1. The said order is now put to challenge before us.

4. The crux of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, as seen from the order of the writ Court, is that the petitioner alleged that his son one Veeranan @ Jothibasu was done to death by his daughter-in-law, the seventh respondent, in connivance with her father, brother and her paramour with the assistance of hooligans. He lodged a complaint dated 09.02.2012 which led to the registration of the case in Crime No.90 of 2012 under Section 302 IPC. Surprisingly, his daughter-in-law, who killed her own husband, was released by the police and the police officials were not enquiring the witnesses, who speak the truth in his favour. It was his claim that if such Police Officers, who were investigating the case, were allowed to continue the investigation, the case would go in a wrong direction and the accused may escape. Hence, the petitioner sent letters dated 11.02.2012 and 14.02.2012 to the second and first respondents respectively in that regard and thereafter filed the writ petition on 17.02.2012 seeking the relief stated supra.

4.1. However, the third respondent, in the report dated 28.05.2012 before the writ Court, narrated the previous history of disputes between the petitioner's son and the seventh respondent and also the conduct of the petitioner's son on the alleged date of occurrence. According to the police, the petitioner's son, in a drunken-mood, attempted to commit sexual assault on his own daughter and his wife, after futile attempts to save their daughter, having left with no option, hit her husband/the petitioner's son with a cricket bat and thereafter caught hold of his testicles and squeezed them leading to his death. It was stated that the seventh respondent exercised her right of private defence, as has been contemplated under Section 100 IPC and hence, she was released on bail in accordance with law and the police did not support her case, but acted as per law. The police relied upon the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., in short), which corroborated the investigation.

4.2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy relian