MANONMANI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the first respondent herein to withdraw the investigation in Crime No,604 of 2007 from the file of the second respondent herein and to transfer the same to the third respondent herein or to any other independent investigating agency to conduct thorough investigation in Crime No,604 of 2007 in accordance with law.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defacto complainant submits that the petitioner lodged a complaint with the respondent police against one A.K. Nagarajan, who is the Town Secretary of AIADMK, Komarapalayam. The said A.K. Nagarajan has gone to the extent of outraging the petitioner's modesty and the same was reported to the respondent police but the respondent police did not take any action on the said complaint. The said A.K. Nagarajan assaulted the petitioner's husband and the petitioner respectively on 19.06.2001 and 08.07.2001. Further the said A.K.Nagarajan continuously disturbed the petitioner's husband and the petitioner due to enmity. Subsequently the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.16699 of 2007 before this Court for direction to register a case against the respondent therein. The complaints dated 21.03.2007 and 19.04.2007. The Honourable High Court by order dated 12.06.2007 directed the second respondent herein to register a case against the said accused person. After this Court has given the direction, the respondent police registered a criminal case against the petitioner in Cr.No,604 of 2007 dated 02.08.2007 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 447, 354, 323, 506(ii) and 120 (b) of IPC. The petitioner's counsel further submits that the said complaint is still pending on the file of the second respondent without any further progress. The aggrieved person again approached this Court by Crl.O.P.No,24136 of 2007 to transfer the case on the file of the second respondent from the second respondent to the third respondent herein. The said case came up for hearing on 1103.07.2009 for final hearing.

(2.) TODAY, when the matter was taken up, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the second respondent/Inspector of Police conducted inspection on the said case and finally has come to the conclusion that the case was closed saying that the case was not proved. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Criminal Original Petition is not maintainable. Hence, it is to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Further if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the second respondent/ Inspector of Police, she is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for her remedy. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed as unnecessary.