V. Padma Bai vs The Inspector of Police, Mylapore Police Station, Mylapore, Madras-4

Pratap Singh, J.—One V. Padma Bai has filed this petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure praying for a direction to the Respondent

to register a case based on the letter left by her son and the statement given by the Petitioner on 20-11-1990 and investigate to the same.

The Petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the application. The allegations in it are briefly as follows:

Her only son Jagadeeswara has married Sub-ashini on 8-3-87 at Madras. The marital life was happy only for a short time. Subashini often went to

her mother''s house. Her son told her that Sub-ashini was not interested in leading a family life with him and that she was having illicit intimacy with

one Gajendran. Subashini went to her parents house in July 1989 for delivery. She gave birth to a female child on 13-11-1989. Subsequently, she

did not turn up. When her son went to his mother-in-law''s house he wad advised by her that he should live with them as ""Veetu Mappillai"". Her

son declined. He was ill-treated and they refused to send their daughter with him. One day when her son went to see his wife at Ambattur,

Subashini and Gajendran were found in a compromising position. Despite that, her son wanted to live with his wife and so he filed Habeas Corpus

Petition in Crl. No. 4958/90. It was dismissed since she appeared before the court and said that she would not live with her husband.

Subashini preferred a complaint to Anti-Dowry cell alleging that her mother-in-law and her son tortured her for dowry. She also alleged that her

son attempted to take blue film of her. Dowry Cell investigated the case and filed a case only u/s 495-A, I.P.C. On 20-11-1990 her sun saw an

article named ""Neela Kanavugal"" in the Tamil Weekly magazine ''Thai'' dated 25-11-1990. In that Article her daughter-in-law has falsely narrated

that her son asked her to act in blue films. Her son was shocked after reading the said Article and he was gloomy throughout the day. On the same

day, her son committed suicide leaving a letter addressed to the first Respondent and other authorities in which he has stated that he has committed

suicide only because of derogatory remarks published in that magazine and had requested action. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mylapore came on

the same day and took the letter. He also enquired her and recorded her statement. Because of the Article published in the said magazine, her son

had committed suicide. Therefore she preferred a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mylapore but he refused to take it. Hence the petition.

In the typed set, the copy of the suicide note said to have been left by deceased Jagadees-waran is filed. It is dated 20-11-1990. That

statement in it is briefly as follows.

He is the only son of his parents. He married Subashini on 8-3-1987. They lived happily. But Subashini had loved Gajendran and had no interest in

marital life with him. His mother-in-law asked him to arrange for conveyance of the properties standing in the name of his mother to Subashini, and

further asked him to remain as ""Veetu Mappillai"". He did not agree for that proposal. While so, an Article was published in the ''Thai'' magazine,

dated 25-11-90 containing defamatory statements, only they are responsible for his death.

The learned Government Advocate stated that a case was registered u/s 174, Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the death of Jagadeeswara

Rao and later it was found out that he had committed suicide and hence the case was closed.

Mr. A. Natarajan, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would contend that prima facie, the suicide note left by Jagadeeswara Rao

indicate an offence punishable u/s 306, I.P.C. and when that be so, u/s 154, Code of Criminal Procedure the case should be registered and

investigation should commence and in the case despite this suicide note left by the deceased and the statement given by the Petitioner to the police,

the case was not registered and investigated and hence a direction may be issued to the Respondent to register the case and investigate the same. I

find force in this argument. If the suicide note left by the deceased prima facie indicates the commission of a cognizable offence it is the duty of the

Respondent to register a case and investigate the same. I would like to make it clear that it is the duty of the investigating officer to investigate the

case thoroughly and completely and file a final report positive or negative, as the case maybe, depending upon the materials collected during the

course of the investigation.

In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to register a case on the fact of the suicide note left by the deceased on 20-11-1990 and

investigate the same. The petition is ordered accordingly.