M.ARUVI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to collect call details records (CDR) of the mobile numbers

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the wife of the first accused in Crime No.630 of 2020 registered for the offences under Sections 452 , 341 , 342 , 294(b) , 323 , 302 of IPC 4A(1) of TNPHW Act. He further submitted that on 10.05.2020, the second respondent police along with his police party came to the residence of the petitioner and took the petitioner and her relatives to the police station for interrogation. Thereafter, the first accused with the assistance of his counsel surrendered before the police station at about 8.30 p.m., on 10.05.2020. It revealed from the CCTV footage fixed in the police station. Therefore, the first accused was never arrested by the second respondent. The confession statement of the accused and the mahazar were prepared in the police station and the Village Administrative Officer and the Village Menial were signed as witness only in the police station at about 12.45 p.m., on 10.05.2020. The victim died for several reasons, but unfortunately the prosecution created a different story as if the accused poured kerosene and set fire.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter and submitted that the present petition is not at all maintainable either in law or on facts for the reasons that in the present case, the investigation is already completed and the final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court and it is pending for committal in P.R.C.No.5 of 2020. More over, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition, since she is none other than the wife of the first accused and she is neither an accused nor a complainant. The crux of the complaint is that the defacto complainant Jayabal is an agriculturalist and also having 2 petty shops in Sirumadurai colony. The defacto complainant has two sons and two daughters. In the year 2013, the accused person, who are all his relatives, along with six others attacked his brother Kumar with knife, for which a case was registered in Crime No.596 of 2013 on the file of the second respondent and it is still pending. Therefore there was an enmity between the defacto complainant and the accused persons.