DHANAM Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to transfer the investigation in Crime No,98/2005 pending on the file of the first respondent to second respondent or to any other independent agency to investigate and to commence afresh investigation in Crime No,98 of 2005 pending on the file of the first respondent. The petitioner herein has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for transfer of investigation in Crime No,98 of 2005 pending on the file of the first respondent, Koovathur Police Station, to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, Chenglepet, the second respondent herein. It is averred by the petitioner that her husband died on 19.02.2005 in mysterious circumstances at the accused Mehta's farm with bleeding from his ear and leg. The petitioner's son filed a complaint before the first respondent and it was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The petitioner states that her late husband was working as coolie in the farm of the accused Mehta, that there was certain dispute in settling the salary to her husband by the accused and there was motive for the accused. And in that respect, there was panchayat held by the local MLA. After that animosity had developed between the accused and the petitioner's late husband. It is stated by the petitioner that her son preferred a complaint against two persons, that after the complaint was registered, the body was sent for postmortem. It is her further contention that the first respondent did not evince interest in the investigation and did not enquire the accused, for reasons best known to him. It is further contended by the petitioner that the accused is a relative of a former DGP of Tamil Nadu and hence the first respondent is colluding with the accused and allowing him to go scot-free. The petitioner therefore prays that the investigation on the complaint given by her son with respect to her husband's death may be transferred from the file of the first respondent to the file of the second respondent.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) argued that after receipt of the complaint, the first respondent after registering a case, took up investigation, went and inspected the scene of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar in the presence of witnesses and examined witnesses. He further contended that during the inquest, the panchayatdars opined that the deceased was working for about 15 years, that for the past ten years, he was staying alone in a hut in the farm and that on 18.02.2005, when he was rearing plantain, due to snake bite he became unconscious and fell dead in the room of the house. He further contended that the finger print experts and forensic experts as also a sniffer dog were brought to the scene of occurrence and with their assistance and suggestion, photographs etc., were taken. The investigation officer also sent the dead body to the relatives. Accordingly, postmortem was conducted on 19.02.2005 at 4.30 p.m and the dead body was handed over to the complainant under acknowledgement.