ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Seeking to transfer the investigation in Cr.No.504 of 2021 from the file of second Respondent to any other investigating agency, this criminal original petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had lodged a complaint regarding the theft of 16 sovereigns of gold jewellery. It was further submitted that, as there has been no substantial progress in the investigation, the present petition has been filed.

3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side), on instructions, submitted that investigation in Crime No.504 of 2021 has been completed and the same was closed as 'undetected'. The respondent police has filed RCS before the trial Court after serving copy of the same on the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

5. In a similar nature of this case, this Court passed an order in Crl.OP(MD)Nos.10290 of 2025 dated 25.11.2025 and the relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

“36.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattiram and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2012 SC 1485], emphasised the concept of “victimology” and recognised that criminal jurisprudence must evolve to protect victims as rights-bearing participants, not as silent spectators. The victim’s expectation that the State will protect him, investigate the crime and restore his loss is a legitimate one arising out of Article 21. The relevant portion is extracted as under:-

“50. ... The criminal jurisprudence, with the passage of time, has laid emphasis on victimology which fundamentally is a perception of a trial from the view point of the criminal as well as the victim. Both are viewed in the social context. The view of the victim is given due regard and respect in certain countries. ...”

37.When that expectation is defeated due to failure of the State machinery, the victim’s fundamental right to life and dignity stands infringed. The responsibility of the State does not end with registration of an FIR or filing of an “undetected” report. It continues until justice, in some form, is provided to the victim.

38.The Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Abdul Rashid v. State of Orissa and Others, [2013 SCC OnLine Ori 493], held that when the State fails to identify the accused or collect acceptable evidence to punish the guilty, the duty to give compensation remains. The Court reasoned that victims of crime have a legitimate expectation that the State will protect their rights and, when it fails to do so, it must compensate them for that failure. The relevant portion is extracted as under:-

“6. Question for consideration is whether the responsibility of the State ends merely by registering a case, conducting investigation and initiating prosecution and whether apart from taking these steps, the State has further responsibility to the victim. Further question is whether the Court has legal duty to award compensation irrespective of conviction or acquittal. When the State fails to identify the accused or fails to collect and present acceptable evidence to punish the guilty, the duty to give compensation remains. Victim of a crime or his kith and kin have legitimate expectation that the State will punish the guilty and compensate the victim. There are systemic or other failures responsible for crime remaining unpunished which need to be addressed by improvement in quality and integrity of those who deal with investigation and prosecution, apart from improvement of infrastructure but punishment of guilty is not the only step in providing justice to victim. Victim expects a mechanism for rehabilitative measures, including monetary compensation. Such compensation has been directed to be paid in public law remedy with reference to Article 21. In numerous cases, to do justice to the victims, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed payment of monetary compensation as well as rehabilitative settlement where State or other authorities failed to pro