AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice V. Periya Karuppiah
This Petition has been filed to transfer the investigation from the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent police (C.B.C.I.D. Wing) and to further investigate the case in crime No.1186 of 2010 dated 30.07.20910 and to file final report in accordance with law.
Heard Mr. Siva Ayyappan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.
The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the case was originally registered by the Karimedu Police Station, Madurai in crime No.1186 of 2010 dated 30.07.2010 on the complaint given by the petitioner and the said police was investigating the case.
He would further submit that since the said Karimedu police did not recover the jewels nor took any sincere steps to nab the accused and hence, the petitioner has filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9255 of 2010 for transfer of investigation from the file of Karimedu police station and the same was ordered by this Court on 26.10.2010, transferring of the investigation from the said Karimedu police station to the file of the District Crime Branch, Madurai with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, District, to monitor the investigation and to issue necessary direction for proper investigation. He would further submit that the District Crime Branch/3rd respondent had also not properly investigated the case and recovered the jewels looted by the employees of the petitioner.
He would further submit that the 3rd respondent police did not evince any interest and the status report filed by the 3rd respondent would not show any progress in the case. He would further submit that the assurance given by the 3rd respondent police in nabbing the accused or to recover the jewels were not complied by the 3rd respondent police and therefore, there is no purpose in keeping the investigation with the 3rd respondent police and it has to be transferred from the file of 3rd respondent to the file of 4th respondent viz., C.B.C.I.D.
He would further submit that the petitioner/defacto complainant will be much prejudiced, if the investigation is not ordered to be transferred from the 3rd respondent and no direction is given to the 4th respondent police to take over and continue the investigation. Therefore, he would request the Court to order the transfer of investigation from the file of the 3rd respondent police to the file of the 4th respondent police.
The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the 3rd respondent police are very much following the cases and they have gone to Kerala to nab the accused on several occasions and the absconding 1st accused is yet to be traced and the 3rd respondent police are having close contact with Kerala State police personnel for tracing the accused persons.
He would further submit in his argument that there was a serious law and order problem in and around the District and the general election had also intervened and for that purposes, the police personnel were used and therefore, they could not do the investigation continuously and if time is granted, the 3rd respondent police would complete the investigation and file the charge sheet and therefore, he would submit that there is no necessity of transferring the investigation from the file of the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent.
I have considered the submissions made on either side.
The case was originally registered by the Karimedu Police, Madurai in crime No.1186 of 2010 on 30.07.2010 and the case was investigated by the said police. this Court has passed an order, directing the transfer of investigation from the file of the Karimedu Police to the file of the 3rd respondent police, hoping that a breakthrough would be achieved and the accused persons would be arrested and consequently, the jewels would be recovered. In the said order, this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, to monitor the case. However, there is no periodical report submitted before the Superintendent of Police, by the 3rd respondent police in respect of the investigation. Even after one year period from the date of order of transfer of investigation, no accused has been arrested nor any jewels has been recovered. The reasons attributed by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) that the police personnel were engaged in various bandobast arrangements and therefore, they could not concentrate on the investigation are not satisfactory. Of all, the status report was filed by the 3rd respondent police only on 26.03.2011 and thereafter, no status report has been filed to show any improvement in the investigation.
Apart from that, this Court has passed an order on 04.11.2011, issuing a direction to submit a report on the further progress of the case by granting three weeks time to secure the accused in Kerala by the special team formed by the 3rd respondent police. Even after the lapse of the said three weeks, which ended on 25.11.2011, neither the accused were nabbed nor any report has been filed to that effect. Therefore, I could see that the request of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner for transfer of investigation from the file of the 3rd respondent police to the file of 4th respondent police has much force and therefore, I have no hesitation to pass an order of transfer of investigation from the file of the 3rd respondent police to the file of the 4th respondent police.
Accordingly, the investigation in crime No.1186 of 2010 dated 30.07.2010 is ordered to be transferred from the 3rd respondent police to the 4th respondent police (C.B.C.I.D. Wing) immediately to conduct the further investigation for getting a breakthrough and to complete the investigation and to file the charge sheet in a near future.
With the above said observation, this petition is ordered.