PAUL DURAI Vs. PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

(2.) THE Petitioner came up before this Court by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the very same relief as asked for in this writ petition, and Janarthanam, J. by order dated 11.3.1992 in Crl.O.P. No. 9952 of 1991 dismissed the same. The facts can be culled out from the order of Janarthanam, J. mentioned above, to understand the case.

(3.) A Counter affidavit has been filed by the third Respondent, who is the Inspector of Police Station J -7, claiming that a complaint was lodged by one Linga Nadar on 14.3.1991 since the accused gave an extra -judicial confession to the said Linga Nadar. The allegation made in the affidavit that the Petitioner made attempts to file a complaint is denied. It is stated that the complaint given by the said Linga Nadar was registered under Ss. 302 and 201, I.P.C. by the then Inspector of Police who took up the investigation. It is specifically denied in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner did not give any complaint. It is also claimed that it is true that the Petitioner was examined by the then Inspector of Police, Velachery under Section 161(3) Code of Criminal Procedure on 20.3.1991, that the statement of demand of dowry and supporting evidence of letters were received by the investigating officer that the same were sent for hand writing expert, Madras to find out the actual author of the handwriting, that the experts report was also received. It is also stated in the counter - affidavit that the letter purported to have been written by the deceased to the Petitioner in support of demand of dowry was received by the Petitioner, that as per the complaint the accused has murdered the deceased on the other motive that it had been revealed in investigation, that in the absence of such clinching evidence to prove the act of dowry harassment leading to death of the deceased, it is difficult to prove the common intention of the accused's father with accused in this regard and that in such circumstances after finishing the investigation and entire materials were placed before the City Public Prosecutor and after obtaining the legal opinion with proper draft final report under Ss. 302 and 201, I.P.C. the final report was filed in this case. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that the F.I.R. did not disclose anything as to the fact of dowry harassment that in the absence of dowry harassment the offence under Section 304 -B did not attract. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that the fact of demand of dowry was brought to the notice of the investigating officer only on 20.3.1991 while recording statement under Section 161(3), Code of Criminal Procedure from the Petitioner, that the letter dated 10.12.1990 was produced said to have been written by the deceased, that as per experts opinion it was not written by the deceased. The allegation made in para 14 of the affidavit is denied. It is also stated that there is no intention and need for the Inspector of Police to do any deliberate act in the investigation against the accused under ordinary statute instead of special provision provided under the Indian Penal Code, and that after collecting the materials and the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, final report has been filed stating that the accused is liable to be punished under Ss. 302 and 201, I.P.C. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that there was a pre - planned murder and an act of concealing the evidence of commission of such murder and not any dowry harassment and as such Ss. 302 and 201, I.P.C. had been incorporated in the F.I.R. that if complaint of Linga Nadar raised any reasonable suspicion in respect of commission of offence of dowry death then alone the necessity for making intimation to nearest Executive Magistrate will arise and that the proceedings under Section 174 Code of Criminal Procedure will come into existence. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that the investigation officer had taken reasonable steps in the investigation, that he sent all the materials seized in the case to Forensic Laboratory and that he obtained the opinion of the experts with regard to the letters. It is specifically stated in the counter that the occurrence took place on 1.3.1991, that it had been reported on 14.3.1991 at about 10.45 hours, that the place of occurrence is a public place and as such the possibility of obtaining any foot, finger and boot prints was meagre. It is also claimed that the offence under Ss. 403 and 405, I.P.C. is meagre comparing with the charge under Ss. 302 and 201, I.P.C. It is also stated that even if it warranted it may be framed by the trial court or the additional final report can be filed before the Court to that effect if the charge is available in this case. It is also stated that the Petitioner has exaggerated the facts. It is categorically stated that the investigation of the Inspector is made impartially and that he collected more reliable and available evidence and on that basis only proper final report had been filed in the Court.