Judgment : 1. The appellant in the writ appeal had filed the writ petition seeking for compensation of a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs from the respondent State over the death of her brother and for a consequential direction to take appropriate disciplinary action against the respondents 3 to 8. The learned single Judge dismissed M.P.No.1 of 2006 by an order dated 31.7.2006 against which, the present appeal has been filed by the original writ petitioner. 2. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Ms. Geetha and Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader representing the respondents, this Court directed the first respondent to file a counter affidavit by order dated 4.9.2006. Again the matter was called on 31.10.2006 and at the request of the learned Government Pleader, it was adjourned and finally, the first respondent filed a counter affidavit in the main writ petition dated 3.11.2006, which is a verbatim reprodution of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent Inspector of Police, P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station. 3. The case of the Police was that the brother of the appellant late Pandian was arrested along with another person Charanraj by them on 4.5.2006 on a First Information Report (for short ‘FIR‘) filed in Crime No. 614 of 2006 by P-3 Vyasarpadi police Station dated 29.4.2006. He was subsequently directed to be released on bail by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 19.5.2006 on the condition that he should report to P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station daily at 10 a.m. It was the stand of the Police that the order of the learned Magistrate came to be received only on 6.6.2006 and only for two days, viz., 7.6.2006 and 8.6.2006, the deceased Pandian came to the Station and signed and thereafter, he was absent. Then on 12.6.2006, he came to the Station at 8.30 a.m. and he was asked to come later. However, he went outside and committed suicide by pouring kerosene over him and lighted himself. He was admitted in the Hospital by his sister, viz, the appellant. An FIR was registered on the basis of his oral statement in Crime No. 781 of 2006 and a dying declaration was taken from him by a learned Magistrate and subsequently, he succumbed to the burn injuries and died. 4. He was admitted in the Hospital by his sister, viz, the appellant. An FIR was registered on the basis of his oral statement in Crime No. 781 of 2006 and a dying declaration was taken from him by a learned Magistrate and subsequently, he succumbed to the burn injuries and died. 4. However, the appellant before this Court expressed a totally different story, viz., that her brother was foisted with a criminal case as he is a transgender person he was sexually assaulted by the Policement in the Station when he came out on conditional bail. The Police belonging to P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station committed sexual assault on him to such an extent and unable to bear the same, he committed suicide by pouring kerosene over him. He was taken to the hospital by the Police themselves. 5. We have heard the case of both sides and it is at total variance with each other and have perused the records. 6. Ms. Geetha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the news of the death of the appellants brother came out in news magazine “Naveena Netri Kan” dated 7.7.2006 at page 12. A copy of the said magazine was furnished to the Court. A reading of the said news report shows that the newspaper reporter had recorded the statement of the deceased Pandian while he was in the hospital. Therefore, a notice was issued to A.S.Mani, Chief Editor of the “Naveena Netri Kan” and also the reporter L. Chandramohan, who had filed the story in the name Kokkisamy. They have duly appeared before this Court and stated that they stood by the story. A.S.Mani, Chief Editor of the said magazine filed an affidavit to that effect on 13.11.2006 and the reporter L. Chandramohan, who has filed the story in the name of Kokkisamy also filed an affidavit reiterating their stand regarding the Veracity of the news report and they are willing to depose before any authority. 7. It was at this juncture, we had summoned the original files relating to the cases in Crime Nos. 614 of 2006 and 781 of 2006 from P-3 Police Station as well as the original file from the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in C.C.No. 622 of 2006 and have gone through the same. 8. 7. It was at this juncture, we had summoned the original files relating to the cases in Crime Nos. 614 of 2006 and 781 of 2006 from P-3 Police Station as well as the original file from the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in C.C.No. 622 of 2006 and have gone through the same. 8. Even though the stand of the Police was that there was no torture to the deceased Pandian, the statement given by the deceased is totally contrary to the same. The FIR was registered on the basis of the oral statement given by the deceased and it is recorded as meaning that ‘I could not bear outrage to my modestry‘. In the same statement, it is recroded as meaning that ‘thereafter, the Police poured water and doused the fire. These two statements found in the FIR clearly show the version contrary to the theory of the Police that there was no sex torture against Pandian and when he committed suicide, it was not in front of the Police Station but at a distance away from the Police Station. In fact, the sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer shows that as per the Police, the place of occurrence was 250 feet on the North Eastern side of the Station across the road. Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the Police States that the members of public doused the fire and that the Police was nowhere in the picture.” Apart from this, the signatures of Pandian recorded in various documents also vary with each other. 9. However, at this juncture, it is unnecessary to go into the minute details of the case. We are of the opinion that this case requires a complete investigation as we are not satisfied with the affidavit filed by the first and third respondents. under these circumstances, we hereby appoint Ms. R. Mala, Registrar (vigilance) and a member of the Distrit Judiciary to conduct an enquiry into the issue relating to the suicide committed by the deceased Pandian. She will go into the complete facts leading to the arrest of Pandian subsequent release on bail and the circumstances that lead him to commit suicide as well as the persons who were responsible, if any, to be named and identified and shall submit a Report on or before 22.1.2007. She will go into the complete facts leading to the arrest of Pandian subsequent release on bail and the circumstances that lead him to commit suicide as well as the persons who were responsible, if any, to be named and identified and shall submit a Report on or before 22.1.2007. She can devise her own procedure in conducting the enquiry and in recording the statements of various persons, who are connected with the case and will have acess to all records and can inspect and take copies of documents, which are in custody of various persons. 10. We hereby direct the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, to provide assistance to the Registrar (Ms. R.Mala) during enquiry by deputing an officer at the rank of a Deputy Commissioner of Police at the Headquarters. We also direct the Director of Medical Services and the Deal of Kilpauk Medicial College to furnish the necessary records to the inquiry officer appointed by this Court. 11. All the original records submitted before us and copies of the pleadings and documents filed before us shall stand transmitted to the Officer appointed by this Court to conduct the enquiry. 12. Post the matter on 22.1.2007 for further orders.