SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 2217

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Suba – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari – Respondent 
CRL OP(MD). No.22528 of 2025
Decided On : 06-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B. Micheal Sebastin, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to transfer the Investigation in Crime No.92/2022, from the 4th respondent to some other investigation agency.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the defacto complinant, on her instance the first information report in Crime No.92 of 2022 was registered by the fourth respondent police with respect to the break opening of his house and theft which happened on 16/7/2022. However, there is no progress in the investigation, hence this petition.

3. The Learned Government Advocate submitted that investigation has been conducted and one Raja sekar was arrested and on his confession one Vijay was also arrested and remanded to judiciail custody. From the accused persons 136.65 grams of gold jewels had been recovered. Final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil in C.C.No.1486 of 2025 on 12.12.2025, altering the offence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that totally 46 sovereigns of gold jewels were stolen and since there was no progress in the investigation, he already had filed a Crl.O.P(MD)No.2062 of 2024 before this Court, in which this Court by order dated 09.02.2024, has passed the following order:

"4.This Court is of the view that when the offence of stealing inolving valuable jewels, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is found reasonable. Hence, the case in Crime No.91 of 2022 is ordered to be withdrawn from the file of the Inspector of Police, Eathamozhi Police Station, Kanniyakumari District. The second Respondent is directed to peruse the file and hand over the same to the officer who is impartial in investigation and have sufficient investigation skills regarding house breaking crimes and also senior officers of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police shall be nominated to guide the investigation, so that the investigation is completed within a reasonable period of three(3) months and entire jewels shall be secured at the earliest."

5. Despite the same, the investigation was not concluded. Hence, the petitioner filed the contempt petition in Cont.P(MD)No.1236 of 2023. When the matter was taken up by this Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation has already been transferred to the Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Circle who is an expert in scientific investigation and the investigation is also monitored by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari and the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police Kanyakumari dated 12/4/2024 to that effect, was also produced before this Court. Recording the same, the contempt petition was also closed. Even thereafter 2 years have lapsed and there is no progress, except the 17 Sovereigns, which was returned by the fourth respondent police, there is no other development or progress in the investigation. In the meanwhile, the inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Circle has already undertook the investigation had also been transferred and now the investigation is left as a backlog case for the past more than one year.

6. The learned Government advocate has filed a status report of the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, before this Court. It is seen that three accused were identified namely Rajasekhar, Vijay and Sanish were identified. However, the third accused passed away but he was not able to recover the remaining jewellery, which was in the custody of the third accused who had passed away.

7. 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 specta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top