A. AMUTHA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VELLORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 14.02.2016, one Indumathi, wife of Jagan died in Sri Ramchandra Hospital, Porur, Chennai, in connection with which, on the complaint lodged by her mother - Amutha, the Police registered a case in Crime No.70 of 2016 on 15.02.2016 under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupattur, conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and in the inquest report, has stated that the deceased Indumathi was in depression as she was not allowed by her in-laws to meet her parents. It is further stated in the report that Indumathi was not given proper medical treatments for her ailment by her husband's family and that may have deteriorated her health leading to her death. The body of Indumathi was subjected to post-mortem and the post-mortem certificate shows that "the deceased would appear to have died due to chronic liver disease and its complications" (emphasis supplied). Investigation conducted by the Police showed that Indumathi's husband was in the Army and had given her treatment in the Air Force Hospital at Bangalore and also in Vijaya Hospital, Chennai. After completing the investigation, the Police filed a closure report opining that the death of Indumathi was not on account of any cruelty by her husband and in-laws and that it was due to food poisoning. Not satisfied with the investigation, Amutha filed Crl.O.P.No.21352 of 2016 for transfer of investigation, in which, this Court vide order dated 06.10.2016, declined the request for transfer of investigation but gave an opportunity to Amutha to file a protest application before the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Tirupatthur. The Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur, sent a communication dated 19.01.2017 to the petitioner, giving her an opportunity to file a protest application before 08.02.2017. The petitioner did not appear before the Magistrate to file any protest petition and it is her contention that she sent the petition by post to the Magistrate. While so, the present petition has been filed for re-investigation.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Police have not properly investigated the case and the investigation was very perfunctory.

(3.) This Court carefully perused the records.