S.NAGAMUTHU, J.

This reference has been made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, raising as many as five questions of law for a decision by this court. Before going into the said questions, let us have a quick look into the back ground of the reference.

2. This is a case of death in a police encounter. The victim of the encounter was one Mr.Kittu @ Kittappa. The occurrence was on 13.06.2015. The police team was headed by a Sub Inspector of Police. He used a fire arm in the encounter. The said Sub Inspector of Police made a report about the occurrence upon which a case was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 119/2015 on the file of Suthamalli Police Station in Tirunelveli District. The said case was initially investigated by one Mr.N.Krishnaraj, the Inspector of Police, Suthamalli Police Station, Tirunelveli District. On his intimation, Mr.M.K.Mayakrishnan, the learned Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif, Cheranmadevi, held inquiry under Section 176(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his report is awaited. The Inspector of Police during investigation seized the pistol along with four live rounds from Mr.Sivaramakrishnan, Sub-Inspector of Police. He recorded the statements of all the members of the police team. The body was sent for post-mortem and the final opinion is awaited. At that stage, on the orders of the Director General of Police, by his proceedings in Rc.No. 095613/Crime3(2)/2015, dated 22.06.2015, the case was transferred to the Crime Branch Crime Investigation Department (CBCID). The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli, was nominated as Investigating Officer. He has already examined 40 witnesses during the investigation, including the family members of the deceased Kittu @ Kittappa. The wound certificates for the injured police personnel and the vehicle damage report were obtained. The pistol and the empty case were sent to Ballistic Analysis through court. The Forensic Science report, the report of the judicial Magistrate under Section 176(1A)of the Code, the Post-Mortem Certificate and the final opinion of the Doctor regarding the cause of death are yet to be received.

3. At that juncture, the wife of the deceased Kittu @ Kittappa, by name, Mrs.Esakkiammal, filed a complaint before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, seeking various directions from the said Court to the Police in respect of the investigation. According to her, it was a cold blooded murder by the police. The main reliefs sought for in the complaint were to transfer the investigation to some other investigating agency and for an order for compensation. The said complaint was made in exercise of the right declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 10 SCC 635 [hereinafter will be referred to in short as "PUCL case"]. In Paragraph No.31.16 of the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared as follows:-

"If the family of the victim finds that the above procedure has not been followed or there exists a pattern of abuse or lack of independent investigation or impartiality by any of the functionaries as above mentioned, it may make a complaint to the Sessions Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place of incident. Upon such complaint being made, the concerned Sessions Judge shall look into the merits of the complaint and address the grievances raised therein. ..."

4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, by order dated 14.07.2015, returned the complaint, by raising certain fundamental doubts about his power to grant the reliefs as sought for in the complaint. Mrs.Esakkiammal re-presented the complaint explaining as to how the reliefs sought for by her could be granted by the Sessions Judge as per the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PUCL case.

5. After hearing the counsel for Mrs.Esakkiammal and after having gone