BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 08/01/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI K.Rajangam ... Petitioner Vs

1.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Palaviduthi Police Station, Kadavur Main Road, Karur District.

Crime No.45 of 2015

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch -CID Karur District. ... Respondents PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the second respondent to withdraw the investigation in Crime No.45 of 2015 and transfer the same to the third respondent for fresh and effective investigation and to file a final report within a time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Nithes For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (crl.side)

ORDER

Seeking to transfer the investigation in Crime No.45 of 2015 from the file of the second respodnent to the third respondent for an effective investigation, this criminal original petition has been filed.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the intermittent night between 15.05.2015 and 16.05.2015, it was found that the petitioner's shop was broken and the safety vault was also broken and silver articles and gold ornaments in his jewelry shop went missing. Totally, 125 sovereigns gold went missing. Immediately, a complaint was lodged on 16.05.2015 before the 2^nd respondent, following which, a First Information Report in Crime No.45 of 2015 was registered for the offences under Section 457 and 380 of IPC (Corresponding to Sections 331 and 305 of BNS, 2023. However, the investigation is not yet over and sought for transfer of investigation.

3.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl) appearing for the respondent police, on instructions, submitted that already the second respondent police had conducted an elaborate investigation and they have even proceeded to neighboring States for identifying the offenders. However, due to inability to trace out the offenders, a closure report was filed as 'undetected'. As far as the fingerprints detected from the place of occurrence, that is the petitioner's shop, on forensic examination, it was concluded that the fingerprints were of the family members of the petitioner and no other fingerprints were available in the scene of occurrence. Despite the same, the second respondent police had proceeded to the neighboring States for investigation and were not able to trace out the offenders and hence, on 04.11.2017 closure report was served on the petitioner to put up the case as 'undetected' and copy was also duly served and thereafter, the same was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking closure of the same. Despite having received the copy of the closure report, the petitioner suppressing the same has come before this Court seeking transfer of investigation.

4.In response to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of 8 fingerprints traced in the scene of occurrence, only 7 fingerprints were of the family members of the petitioner. One chance fingerprint was also traced. However, the police did not properly work on it during the investigation. Apart from that, he categorically contended that he never obtained any copy of the closure report.

5.Pursuant to the said submission, this Court required the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) to place before me the said copy of the notice served upon the complainant in Form No.26 and the same is extracted as follows:

6.A careful perusal of the same would reveal that the said closure report will not reveal on what category the same has been served on the complainant and the second respondent police, who had served the same, had not mentioned the category whether it is 'closed' or 'as false' or 'non-

cognizable' or 'mistake of fact of law' or 'undetectable'.

7.There is nothing to wonder in the submission of the petitioner that he was unable to understand the reason behind serving such a notice.