M SONAIMUTHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three Criminal Original Petitions have arisen out of certain dispute between two group of persons belonging to the Nadar Community.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the three Criminal Original Petitions can be briefly stated as under:- There is a Nadar Mahajana Sangam at Madurai, disputes have arisen between One Karikolraj and Arivananda Pandian as to who should be the Secretary of the said Sangam. It has led to formation of factions headed by Arivananda Pandian and Karikolraj. On 26-1-2000, at 23.50 hours, one Maheswaran, Pondy, Paulpondy, Kumar, Sundaramurthy and Kamaraj were chitchating. The persons belonging to Karikolraj group, namely Karikolraj, Pon Mahendravel, Padmanabhan, Joseph Vasudevan, Gnanasekaran, Mayandi Arumuga Perumal, Muttai Selvam and Bhasker, came there in a vehicle and tried to attack the persons belonging to Arivananda Pandian group. Others escaped, but Pondy was attacked by the group with deadly weapons, as a result of which Pondy died. Kamaraj preferred a complaint to the B-2 Temple Police Station, Madurai Town, on the basis of which, a case in Crime No. 49 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148 and 302 I.P.C. was registered. Investigation is going on. In the course of the investigation, the investigation machinery arrested Joseph Vasudevan. Arumuga Perumal, and Bhaskar on 27-1-2000. Muttaiselvam was arrested on 28-1-2000. Rest of the accused are yet to be apprehended. While the matters stand thus, Indira, wife of Kamaraj lodged a complaint to the first respondent herein on 24-3-2000 alleging that her husband had been abducted by accused Gnanasekaran and others and his whereabouts were not known. A case in Crime No. 416 of 2000 was registered and investigation is going on. Kamaraj later returned and he gave a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai on 28-3-2000 stating that the accused in Crime No. 49 of 2000 had nothing to do with the crime. According to the Arivananda Pandian group, Kamaraj had been kidnapped and threatened to give a false statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Now the petitioner in Criminal O.P. No. 7064 of 2000 has been preferred by one M. Sonaimuthu, father of the deceased Pondy. The petitioner had stated that though the case was registered by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Madurai Town, at the instance of the orders of the Hon'ble The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the case was transferred to C.B.C.I.D., Police, Chennai at Madurai on 30-1-2000. According to him, the investigation has lost lustre; the Investigating Officer adopted a lackadaisical method and that he has failed to arrest the accused in the main case, though they are available. Acording to him, Karikolraj is regularly addressing public meetings and the others are also regularly available in their residences and business places, but the Investigating Officer is not evincing any interest to apprehend them. According to the petitioner, the slow attitude of the police is only to facilitate the accused to utilize the benevolent provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. that if after lapse of ninety days the final report is filed, the accused shall automatically be released on bal. He therefore seeks that the investigation can be entrusted to Central Bureau of Investigation. Arivananda Pandian had come forward with Crl.O.P.No. 7207 of 2000 to direct the Commissioner of Police Madurai City to continue the personal security offered to the petitioner to safeguard his life and limbs till the disposal of the murder trial in Cr.No. 49 of 2000. The third petition, viz. Crl.O.P.No. 7074 of 2000 had also been preferred by Arivananda Pandian seeking direction to the third respondent, the Secretary, Home Prohibition and Excise, Government of Tamil Nadu to direct the first and second respondents, namely, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Town Crime Range, Madurai, to open the premises at No.2 South Chitra Street, Madurai and hand over the keys to the petitioner to run the Sangam Administration. According to the petitioner, because of the rival claims by the petitioner and Karikolraj, one K.Chandrasekaran has lodged a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City on 24-1-2000 regarding certain damages caused to the Sangam premises. Since the police did not take action, Chandrasekaran preferred W.P.No. 1534 of 2000 on 1-2-2000 in which this Court (writ side) ordered for registration of a case and accordingly, a case was registered by B-2 Meenakshiamman Koil Police in Crime No. 79 of 2000 on 4-2-2000 for the offences under Sections 144, 149, 201, 204, 454 read with 120 (b) I.P.C., and 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Properties Damages and Loses Act. In the course of the investigation in that crime, the Investigating Officer locked the Sangam premises and is keeping the key with him. The petitioner Arivananda Pandian filed Writ Appeal No. 207 of 2000 before this Court against the orders passed in W.P.No. 15344 of 2000. That Writ Appeal was dismissed with an observation that the order passed by the Civil Court must be respected. The matter is pending before the Civil Court for adjudication in Sub-Court at Madurai and District Munsif Court at Sankarankoil in O.S.No. 79 of 2000 and O.S.No. 333 of 1999 respectively. According to the. petitioner, B-2 Police officials, Madurai Town, took proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. with regard to possession and the Revenue Divisional Officer held that the petitioner Arivananda Pandian and his group are entitled to lawful occupation of the Sangam premises and they can carry on the administration of the Sangam. Inspite of the said order, the Investigating Officer has not handed over the keys of the Sangam premises. According to the petitioner, the first and second respondents are to be directed to hand over the Sangam premises. 2. Heard both the sides. Let me consider the petitioner for transfer of investigation from the C.B., C.I.D., Madurai to C.B.I., viz., Crl.O.P.No.7064 of 2000.

(3.) The Public Prosecutor submitted that it has become a fashion with every litigant to make a request to Courts that investigation in the criminal case should be handed over to C.B.I. He further submitted that unless there are compelling reasons, such request cannot be complied with. The learned Public Prosecutor cited the decision reported in Som Dut Thakur vs. State of Haryana and others, where their Lordships of the Apex Court have pointed out as under:-