ORDER :

1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to transfer of the investigation of the FIR in Crime No. 532 of 2023 dated 19.11.2023 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent for conducting a fair investigation and file charge sheet before concerned Court.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein is running a petty shop and living with her son and daughter. On 19.11.2023, when the petitioner went to her shop and returned to home around 8.30 p.m., she found her almirah broken and 28 sovereigns of gold jewels and a sum of Rs.90,000/- was missing. On receipt of complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.535 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 380 of IPC on 19.11.2024. Even after a lapse of 12 years, there is no progress in the investigation. Hence, the petition.

3. The petitioner alleges that the third respondent police neither came to the house of the petitioner nor conducted the investigation properly and no effective investigation has been undertaken though 12 years have passed and no progress has been made. If the investigation is continued by the second respondent, the real culprits would escape from the clutches of law.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that after completion of investigation, the final report has been filed as “Undetected” and RCS notice was also served on the petitioner on 22.02.2025.

5. This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. 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 expect