Judgment : This petition has been filed under S. 482, Cr.P.C. for issue of directions to the Director General of Police, Madras, or the Special Branch or C.I.D. Branch of Police, Madras, to investigate the cause of death of the petitioners husband, Pulavar Gunasekaran. .2. The averments found in the petition have to be stated in brief for the disposal of this petition. The petitioner Shyamala had married the deceased Pulavar Gunasekaran in or about 1972. Two children named Vennila aged about 13 years and Senbaga Pandian, aged about 11 years were born out of the wedlock. The petitioners husband was an active social worker, trade union leader and a staunch member of the A.I.A.D.M.K. Party. About three years prior to April, 1985, when this petition was filed in this Court, the Government had arranged for starting a Co-operative Spinning Mill at Uttanagarai in Dharmapuri District. The Government had also appointed one P. K. Periyaswamy as the Managing Director. The said Periyaswamy and the petitioners husband became very friendly and the latter used to spend most of his time in the company of the former. The petitioners husband was elected as the Special President of the Spinning Mill Workers Union. As days passed on, the friendship between the two led to several evils including dishonest money making. 3. The petition states, that the petitioner was personally aware, that her husband was made a middleman to collect huge amounts to be paid to the Managing Director towards appointment of workers, staff and for other considerations etc. Therefore, the petitioners husband was aware of the huge wealth accumulated by Periaswamy and his wife, who professed Meivazi Salai faith. The petitioner claims to be in possession of a letter written by her husband in his own hand writing disclosing the unaccounted money and property acquired by Periaswamy. A rift arose between the petitioners husband and Periaswamy and thereafter they were at loggerheads. Naturally it resulted in enmity, ill-will and unpleasant interludes leading to defamatory gossips. Only on the instigation of Periaswamy, when they were friendly, the petitioners husband had collected huge amounts from several unemployed persons assuring them of a job and had paid such collections to Periaswamy after deducting his meagre commission. Periaswamy neither offered jobs for those persons nor returned the money taken. The reckless behaviour of Periaswamy put the petitioners husband to untold suffering. 4. Periaswamy neither offered jobs for those persons nor returned the money taken. The reckless behaviour of Periaswamy put the petitioners husband to untold suffering. 4. While so, in December, 1984, during last General Elections the petitioners husband went to his native constituency to work for his party candidates, since his services were requisitioned in view of his being a public orator and poet. On 15-4-1984 the petitioner received a message at or about noon, that her husband had died by committing suicide at Panamarathupatti, Salem. The shocked petitioner rushed in Panamarathupatti only to find her husbands body kept ready for cremation. Quite against the usual custom in the family to bury the deceased, the body was cremated rather hurriedly. The petitioner was shocked, dumb-founded and helpless, Since the death was sudden, even her relatives did not attend the funeral of her husband. .5. The petitioner had reason to suspect that the sudden death of her husband could not be a case of suicide, but a case of planned murder by Periaswamy and his henchmen. She sent complaints by registered posts to several authorities including the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Though the complaints had been acknowledged, the petitioner had not been intimated about any action taken by the concerned authorities. The petitioner understood, that the first information report had not even been registered, for supicious death of Pulavar Gunasekaran. The grievance of the petitioner is that the probable culprits behind the murder of her husband being rich, powerful and influential, are able to thwart the due process of law. 6. It is under those circumstances that the petitioner had chosen to invoke the inherent powers of this Court. 7. This petition is admitted by T. N. Singaravelu, J., on 29-4-1985. Even in 1985 the hearing of the petition was adjourned on two occasions by Sengottuvelan, J. After that, this petition went into wilderness till it was posted before me in late June, 1990. I directed the learned Government Advocate to get information as to what had happened to the complaints sent by the petitioner, to respondents 2 to 4. After sometime the learned Government Advocate informed this Court that the second respondent, the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri had received the complaint, and the third respondent the Superintendent of Police, Salem District had not received it. After sometime the learned Government Advocate informed this Court that the second respondent, the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri had received the complaint, and the third respondent the Superintendent of Police, Salem District had not received it. This Court observed, that it was the duty of the second respondent to have forwarded the complaint to the third respondent for investigation, because the alleged cognizable offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police, Salem District. Several further adjournments were afforded to the learned Government Advocate, to put before the Court the nature of investigation conducted on the complaint of the petitioner. admittedly received by the second respondent, who owed a duty, to have the complaint forwarded for proper investigation, to the jurisdiction police. .8. The learned Government Advocate on more than one occasion had expressed his helplessness in getting instructions from the investigating agency and finally he represented today that in spite of his wireless message or 17-8-1990, nobody has turned up to instruct him. It is rather unfortunate that the right and liberty of citizens are sought to be jeopardised by the negligent action of the respondents and it is equally shocking, that the Government Advocate pleads helplessness to get instructions from the police authorities. It would not have been very difficult for the learned Government Advocate to get in touch with the Inspector General of Police or Home Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu to enforce the presence of the respondents to suitably instruct him. It is very painful for the Court to find, that day-in and day-out the Government Advocate on the criminal side represents to the Court, that he is unable to get instructions even in matters pertaining to 1985. The attitude of the investigating police as well as the professed helplessness pleaded by the office of the Public Prosecutor, cannot but be commented upon, for the Courts owe a duty to safeguard the liberty of a citizen. It is often vociferously stated, that there are arrears pending in Courts, little realising that pendency in Courts is mostly due to the negligence of the law enforcing agency, as far as the Criminal Court is concerned. I hope the authorities concerned will take quick steps to remedy this cancer which affects the speedy administration of justice. It is often vociferously stated, that there are arrears pending in Courts, little realising that pendency in Courts is mostly due to the negligence of the law enforcing agency, as far as the Criminal Court is concerned. I hope the authorities concerned will take quick steps to remedy this cancer which affects the speedy administration of justice. The law enforcing agency, must realise, that they cannot afford to lose the confidence, the public have in them. 9. On the facts stated, it will be necessary for the Director General of Policy, Madras, to direct any subordinate authority of his choice, to have the complaint of the petitioner investigated, in accordance with law, as ordained under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is always open for the investigating agency to collect materials during investigation and send a report either way to the Magistrate, of the investigation disclosing commission of offences by certain named persons or the first information report being a mistake of fact or not disclosing any of the offences, alleged. It will not be open to the respondents to put the complaint in cold storage and allow it to freeze without even representing to the Court as to what had happened to the complaint, after five years, in spite of incessant calls to them, having been made by the learned Government Advocate. This petition is allowed, with directions aforementioned, to the first respondent, the Director General of Police. A copy of this order is directed to be sent to the Director General of Police, Madras, as well as the Law Department of the State of Tamil Nadu.