B A MAHALINGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a direction for conduct of investigation and filing of final report in Crime No. 1092 of 2011 on the file of the respondent. The petitioner was the father of a girl by name Lavanya who committed suicide by drowning on 09.10.2011. The petitioner informs that one Smt. Mubeen Taj, Managing Director of Blue Chip Services International (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. informed of being in the business of arranging jobs for Indians outside India, obtaining visas etc. She informed that she would obtain jobs for the petitioner's daughter Lavanya as also her friend as Nurses at Bangalore. Since both were qualified nurses they willingly agreed. Upon her promises and inducements both the petitioner's daughter and her friend paid sums of Rs. 50,000/- each on 01.09.2010 and Rs. 3,50,000/- each on 31.03.2011. They were informed by Smt. Mubeen Taj that they would have to establish their financial stability towards obtaining visas and a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs was to be deposited in her bank account in India. Such amount was deposited and further demand of Rs. 75,000/- was paid by each of them on 28.04.2011. The sum of Rs. 7 lakhs deposited in the Teynampet branch of Punjab National Bank on 28.04.2011 was wrongfully withdrawn by Smt. Mubeen Taj, the very next day. The petitioner's daughter Lavanya and her friend came to know thereof only later. Despite the petitioner's daughter and her friend doing well in the interview conducted by British High Commission in Chennai, they received a communication of such office on 23.08.2011 informing that the application submitted by them were forged and they have cheated such office by withdrawing a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs on 24.09.2011. They were also informed that they would not be able to enter the United Kingdom till 23.08.2021. The sum wrongfully withdrawn by Smt. Mubeen Taj ought to have been held with the bank account till such time both the petitioner's daughter Lavanya as also her friend reach London. Other amounts were also paid to Smt. Mubeen Taj. The petitioner and his family members suffered grave anguish owing to the wrongful acts of Smt. Mubeen Taj. Between 23.08.2011 and 08.10.2011, the petitioner, his friends as also the deceased girl Lavanya met her on several occasions. She had no explanation as to why the British High Commission had come to the conclusion that the documents submitted by them were forged. She told the petitioner that she would be able to refund only 40% of the amount paid to her by the petitioner's daughter Lavanya. Two of the petitioner's elder and married daughters were sent back from the matrimonial home since their jewels which had been pledged to advance Lavanya's cause could not be redeemed. Lavanya left a suicide note and committed suicide on 09.10.2011. Learned counsel for petitioner informing the above position submits that the respondent has not fairly conducted himself in investigating the case.

(2.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case has been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 1092/2011. Upon due enquiry, it is found that no offence under Section 306 IPC stood attracted and hence, the enquiry had been closed. He submits that where a case stands registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and on enquiry therein no offence is found to have been committed, the police do not file a refer charge sheet/negative final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. He has placed before this Court copies of the suicide note of the deceased, inquest report, statements recorded therein, the postmortem certificate, the forensic report, the final opinion of the police surgeon confirming the death to be one of drowning, statement dated 17.03.2013 of the accused person and a letter of undertaking given by the petitioner to the accused person on 06.01.2012. These are accompanied by the enquiry report dated 28.09.2013. The enquiry report does not even reveal an attempt to follow the procedure envisaged under Section 174 Cr.P.C., which requires that an inquest be conducted in a case of suicide by an Executive Magistrate. In the instant case, the inquest has been conducted by a Sub-Inspector of Police. A statement obtained at the hands of an accused and a letter of undertaking not to prosecute the case further upon receipt of certain monies are used to justify the finding of no offence under Section 306 IPC. The suicide note left behind by the deceased has been ignored. A reading thereof informs much that would call for a detailed investigation regards offence under section 306 IPC. In normal circumstances, it would be matter for investigation to inform the offence, if any committed. However, in the instant case, the suicide note informs acts of wrong committed by the accused, sufferings caused to the deceased and her family members, her having committed suicide owing to having suffered anguish and having caused pain and suffering to her parents and family members. Thus, the same informing the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death, would be admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. There absolutely has been no attempt to verify the genuineness of the suicide note to cause comparison of the handwriting and signature of the deceased with her admitted signature/handwriting. In fact, the suicide note has been given a complete go-by. Rare is a case where this Court would find such blatant and abject wrong doing on the part of an investigating officer.

(3.) Mr. S. Seenibabu, Inspector, Periyapalayam Police Station, Thiruvallur District (the then Sub-Inspector), who conducted the investigation of the case, is present before this Court. He has no more to offer in explanation of his conduct, than to inform that the tie facto complainant informed of satisfaction if a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) was obtained from the accused.