KANNAN ALIAS MUTHUKUMAR Vs. THE STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of fence eating crops. The Police Officials, who are supposed to safeguard the citizens have themselves involved in robbery of 2600 gms of gold(2.6 kgs of gold). The petitioner along with his friend Anand, who are all dealers in gold jewellery purchased gold from Chennai and they travelled by Howrah Express from Chennai to Trichy and when they tried to catch the bus to Madurai, they are intervened by the accused, who are coming in Tata Qualis vehicle. They were taken in the car at the knife point and robbed the gold and pushed them out. In this regard, the petitioner gave a complaint which was registered in Cr. No. 444 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 363, 395 r/w 397 IPC.

(2.) THE investigation revealed that A1, A2 and A3 are the police officials. However, the police could recover only a sum of Rs. 1,84,000/ - and no reason was given with regard to the remaining amount and also regarding the recovery of stolen goods. Therefore, the petitioner filed Crl. O.P(MD) No. 4206 of 2009 to reinvestigate the case. This Court directed the petitioner to file a petition under Section 173(8) for further investigation. Pursuant to that, the petitioner took out C.M.P. No. 360 of 2009, on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli which ordered fresh investigation on 16.12.2009 and to submit a report on or before 02.02.2010. Thereafter also, investigation was not done properly and compelling the petitioner to give a representation on 12.04.2010. Finally, the petitioner moved this Court by way of Crl. O.P. No. 6609 of 2010, which was disposed of with a direction to file a final report, on 15.09.2010 as per C.M.P. No. 360 of 2009. However, the report was made only on 15.11.2010. Aggrieved by that only the petitioner is before this Court seeking change of investigation agency on the ground that no proper investigation has been done and the stolen properties were not recovered from the receivers.

(3.) HEARD the parties and perused the records.