S KUMARAVELU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of transferring the investigation from the file of the fourth respondent to the file of the fifth respondent.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the victim in this case by name Palmalar. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased was the active member of women wing of a political party and she was functioning as an Organiser in Chennai K.K.Nagar locality. It is further submitted that she has earned good name and fame among the locality people. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that she was done to death brutally on 03.06.2008 and the complaint was preferred by the Village Administrative Officer on 04.06.2008 as he has found her body within his jurisdiction. On the basis of such complaint, a case was registered by the fourth respondent police in Crime No,329 of 2008 for the offence under section 302 IPC. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the lapse of nearly about eight months, the Investigating Officer has not conducted investigation in a proper manner known to law. It is further contended that absolutely, there is no progress. Even the culprits were not apprehended by the fourth respondent police. It is contended that the petitioner, who is the husband of the victim, sent representations dated 08.08.2008, 29.08.2008 and 07.09.2008 to the higher officials raising suspicion against certain influential person of political party. It is contended that in spite of such representations, till date, there is absolutely no response from the authority concerned. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that he may not get fair investigation in this matter and as such the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court with the above said prayer.

(3.) IT is seen that the petitioner is the husband of the victim of this case who has been done to death brutally. The fact remains that the complaint was registered as early as on 4.6.2008 i.e. immediately after the occurrence on 3.6.2008 on the basis of the complaint preferred by the Village Administrative Officer and a case was registered for the offence under section 302 IPC. IT is seen that the petitioner has sent several representations dated 08.08.2008, 29.08.2008 and 07.09.2008 raising suspicion against involvement of certain influential persons in the case. The grievance of the petitioner is that those persons have not even been examined by the police till date. Though it is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that as per the representations of the petitioner, the Investigating Officer has investigated the matter in that angle in respect of one Dhanasekaran, the fact remains that the counter does not reveal that the said Dhanasekaran was examined by the investigating officer at any point of time. IT is also contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the involvement of such person has been completely ruled out by the 4th respondent herein.