Judgment :- Mr. P. Rathinam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of direction to the 6th respondent to take over the investigation of the cases in Crime Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2007 on the file of the fifth respondent and Crime No.6 of 2007 on the file of the Valangaiman Police Station, Tiruvarur District to conduct fair and impartial investigation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has also filed seven miscellaneous petitions in the main criminal original petition namely M.P.Nos.1 to 7 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in M.P.No.1 of 2007, it is prayed for stay of investigation of the cases in Crime Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2007, pending on the file of the fifth respondent. In M.P.No.2 of 2007, the prayer made by the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to provide adequate security to the life of the petitioner and his family members. In M.P.No.3 of 2007, the prayer made by the petitioner is for a direction to the first respondent to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as an interim measure of compensation towards the loss of properties suffered by him and his family members. In M.P.No.4 of 2007, the prayer made by the petitioner is for a direction to the first respondent to furnish before this Court a list of police officers with independence and integrity to take over the investigation of the cases in Crime Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2007 on the file of the fifth respondent and Crime No.6 of 2007 on the file of the Valangaiman Police Station, Tiruvarur District as an interim measure. In M.P.No.5 of 2007, the prayer of the petitioner is to direct the fifth respondent to register a First Information Report on the basis of the complaint dated 19.01.2007. In M.P.No.6 of 2007, the prayer of the petitioner is to direct the fifth respondent to register a First Information Report on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner’s mother, Padmavathy, dated 20.01.2007. In M.P.No.7 of 2007, the prayer of the petitioner is to permit the petitioner to delete the Crime No.6 of 2007 on the file of the Valangaiman Police Station, Tiruvarur District in the main Crl.O.P.No.17933 of 2007. 3. In M.P.No.7 of 2007, the prayer of the petitioner is to permit the petitioner to delete the Crime No.6 of 2007 on the file of the Valangaiman Police Station, Tiruvarur District in the main Crl.O.P.No.17933 of 2007. 3. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, M.P.No.7 of 2007 is allowed and Crime No.6 of 2007 on the file of the Valangaiman Police Station, Tiruvarur District in the main Crl.O.P.No.17933 of 2007 is hereby deleted. 4. Mr. P. Rathinam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a practising Advocate and he is the native of Kudavasal. It is further submitted that the petitioner is practising in various Courts in Tiruvarur, Nannilam and Kumbakonam and he is also involved in the Legal Aid Movement and he is the member of Tiruvarur District Advisory Committee under the union Ministry of Sports and one of the member of the Medical Advisory Board of the Health Department, which is under the control of the District Collector, Tiruvarur. It is also further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is also involved in Human Rights Organisations and the Red Cross Society. It is also submitted that the petitioner has also actively assisted the victims of heinous crimes by providing them legal assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in a case of double murder, which is said to have been taken place on 14.01.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner’s family is also owning certain establishments such as iron scrap shop, a commercial complex consisting of a marriage hall, a two wheeler show room, under the name and style of Dhanam Autos, Balan Water Service Centre, Balan Construction, a gym and the Advocate office of the petitioner is also functioning in the same commercial complex. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 14.01.2007 at about 2.30 p.m., when the petitioner was having his lunch at his brother’s house at Atthikadai in Kudavasal, he came to know that one Muthu, M.R. Arasankovan, M.R. Thenkovan and others came to their shop in a Tata Sumo van and damaged the materials in the shop and also assaulted the inmates. Thereafter, the petitioner informed the fifth respondent police over the phone, but the petitioner was requested to come in person and prefer a complaint, on the ground that the Police Station is not having sufficient strength to send a team to the troubled spot. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner went to his shop in a motorbike and found a mob sitting inside and around the spot a Tata Sumo Van bearing registration No.TN 01 S-9499 was parked in front of his shop. The said mob threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and as a result the petitioner started to run from the scene and he was chased by the mob. It is also submitted that one Thenkovan threw an aruval on the petitioner and the same caused injury on the right leg of the petitioner. One Senthil cut the petitioner on his right side head, one Muthu cut the petitioner on his back and one Sundar caused injury on his right hand with aruval. It is also further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was also assaulted by other persons who were assembled in the spot. When the driver of the petitioner one Elangovan came to the rescue of the petitioner, he was also assaulted and attacked by the mob and sustained injury. The mob also attempted to attack one Gloria Mary, who is working in the Advocate’s office. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was continuously and indiscriminately attacked with the weapons by the said mob and as a result the petitioner opened a fire in the air and even then the mob continued to attack him. As there is a threat to his life, the petitioner is left with no other alternative and ultimately fired at the said mob with a view to save his life, which resulted in the death of two persons, namely Senthilkumar and Thamizh and three persons sustained injuries. 6. It is further submitted that thereafter, the petitioner informed the fifth respondent police about the occurrence and pleaded for security to his life and to the life of his family members. On information, one Mr. Jayaraman, Inspector of Police and a constable, both attached to the fifth respondent police station came to the spot and the petitioner narrated the occurrence to the said Inspector. 7. On information, one Mr. Jayaraman, Inspector of Police and a constable, both attached to the fifth respondent police station came to the spot and the petitioner narrated the occurrence to the said Inspector. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that inspite of the specific information and statement given by the petitioner, the fifth respondent police has not registered any F.I.R. and on the other hand registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 of I.P.C on 15.01.2007, based on a portion of the statement of Elangovan, the driver of the petitioner herein, and even in that report certain vital details were omitted deliberately and certain wrong information were also furnished in the F.I.R. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 15.01.2007, the petitioner was taken to Government Hospital, Mannargudi by the police and he was given first aid treatment at Mannargudi Government Hospital. The learned counsel further submits that the F.I.R. was registered by the fifth respondent police, adding false details at the instance of two influential persons of the locality, who hail from two different political parties. The learned counsel further submits that at the instance of such persons, the accused persons caused heavy damage to the properties of the petitioner and his family members and also looted the premises by taking away gold jewellary, silver articles, cash etc. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s family members including his brother were also attacked. The commercial complex of the petitioner’s family was set fire by the mob as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Head Constable attached to the fifth respondent police station who came to the scene of occurrence also took videograph, while the mob was in action when they set fire to the commercial complex of the petitioner and his house. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that on the basis of the complaint preferred by the Police Head Constable, a complaint was registered in Crime No.9 of 2007 on 14.01.2007 under Sections 147, 148, 506 (ii) 353 I.P.C and under Section 3 of the P.P.D. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire occurrence took place in the presence of police personnel, fire personnel and other persons of the locality. .9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire occurrence took place in the presence of police personnel, fire personnel and other persons of the locality. .9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of all these happenings, the fifth respondent police has not taken any proper action and also not registered F.I.R. as per the details and information furnished by the petitioner and his family members and on the other hand, fifth respondent police prepared the F.I.R. as per his own narration. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that thereafter, the petitioner and his family members were continuously threatened by the accused persons mentioned in the complaint given by the petitioner herein and as a result there is a serious threat to the life of the petitioner and his family members and even the petitioner has given a representation dated 19.01.2007 to the Inspector General of Police, the third respondent herein. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner, namely Padmavathy also made a complaint on 06.02.2007 to the fifth respondent police in respect of causing damage, commission of theft of gold jewellery, silver articles, cash and setting fire to the marriage hall complex and house etc and the fifth respondent has not chosen to register the same and no action was taken till date. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the accused persons being politically powerful persons, the police officials have not taken any action in accordance with law and it is also contended that all the accused persons are having the background of bad antecedents. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fifth respondent police has not only not registered the F.I.R. on the basis of the complaints given by the petitioner and his family members but also registered certain F.I.R’s with false details which are contrary to the information and statement given by the petitioner and his family members. As a result, the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that he may not get fair investigation at the hands of the fifth respondent police. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation should be transferred from the file of the fifth respondent police to some other independent Investigating Agency. .12. As a result, the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that he may not get fair investigation at the hands of the fifth respondent police. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation should be transferred from the file of the fifth respondent police to some other independent Investigating Agency. .12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the fifth respondent police has taken effective steps and registered F.I.R. on the basis of information and statement given by the petitioner and his family members. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the fifth respondent registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2007 for the alleged offence of double murder against the petitioner herein and others in respect of the first occurrence said to have taken place on 14.01.2007. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in retaliation to the first occurrence, namely, the occurrence took place on 14.01.2007, the other incidents took place resulting in the registration of Crime Nos.9, 10 and 11 of 2007 by the very same fifth respondent police on the complaint given by the petitioner and petitioner’s family members. It is further submitted that all the crime numbers are properly investigated by fifth respondent herein and there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the fifth respondent police. It is also submitted that no ground is made out by the petitioner herein for transferring the investigation pending on the file of the fifth respondent police to any other police. It is further submitted that the fifth respondent and other police officials deny the allegations levelled against them by the petitioner herein, as cases were registered on the basis of complaints given by both sides. Therefore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently and strongly opposed the prayer made by the petitioner herein for transferring the investigation from the file of the fifth respondent police. 13. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record including the petition filed by the petitioner herein. 14. Therefore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently and strongly opposed the prayer made by the petitioner herein for transferring the investigation from the file of the fifth respondent police. 13. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record including the petition filed by the petitioner herein. 14. It is seen that the petitioner is a practising Advocate, who is also said to have been involved in Legal Aid Movement, Human Rights Orgainsations and also assisted the victims of heinous crimes and further it is seen that his family members owning substantial properties at the scene of occurrence namely, Commercial Complex and other buildings wherein, the petitioner’s Advocate office also situated. It is very unfortunate to note that the occurrence said to have taken place on 14.01.2007, resulting in the death of two persons. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner’s family property namely commercial complex was also damaged and the petitioner and his family members were also assaulted and they have given counter complaints against the prosecution party. Though it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner said to have fired only while exercising his right to self defence, it is for the petitioner to prove the same only at the time of full fledged trial. It is seen from the materials available on record that the petitioner’s family property namely, commercial complex was also said to have been damaged due to the causing of fire and also due to the attack by the mob. Therefore, it is the onerous duty of the investigating agency to conduct proper investigation in accordance with law, in respect of all the occurrences taken place on 14.01.2007 and subsequently. 15. The grievance of the petitioner to the effect that the statement given to the fifth respondent police was not recorded and no F.I.R. was registered cannot be brush aside lightly. It is also relevant to note that yet another grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that the other complaint given by the petitioner’s elder brother Karthikeyan dated 19.01.2007 and the complaint given by the petitioner’s mother Padmavathy dated 20.01.2007 were also not registered by the respondent police. There is absolutely no explanation for such serious lapses. It is also relevant to note that yet another grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that the other complaint given by the petitioner’s elder brother Karthikeyan dated 19.01.2007 and the complaint given by the petitioner’s mother Padmavathy dated 20.01.2007 were also not registered by the respondent police. There is absolutely no explanation for such serious lapses. It is needless to state that once the complaint contains allegations constituting certain cognizable offence, it is the mandatory duty of the concerned police officials to register the F.I.R. 16. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Kumari vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) 2006 (2) Supreme 243 ) has held as follows: “4. That the Police Officer mandatorily registers a case on a complaint of a cognizable offence by the citizen under Section 154 of the Code are no more res integra. The point of law has been set at rest by this Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335). This Court after examining the whole gamut and intricacies of the mandatory nature of Section 154 of the Code has arrived at the finding in paras 31 & 32 of the judgment as under: “31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154 (1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. ……. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. ……. In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code.” “32. Be it noted that in Section 154 (1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression “information” without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, “reasonable complaint” and “credible information” are used. Evidently, the non-qualification of the word “information” in Section 154 (1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, ‘reasonableness’ or ‘credibility’ of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word “information” without qualifying the said word. In other words, ‘reasonableness’ or ‘credibility’ of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word “information” without qualifying the said word. Section 139 of the code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of 1861) passed by the Legislative Council of India read that ‘every complaint or information’ preferred to an officer in charge of a police station should be reduced into writing which provision was subsequently modified by Section 112 of the Code of 1872 (Act 10 of 1872) which thereafter read that ‘every complaint’ preferred to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced in writing. The word ‘complaint’ which occurred in previous two Codes of 1861 and 1872 was deleted and in that place the word ‘information’ was used in the Codes of 1882 and 1898 which word is now used in Sections 154, 155, 157 and 189 (c) of the present Code of 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). An overall reading of all the Codes makes it clear that the condition which is sine qua non for recording a first information report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence.” Finally, this Court in para 33 said: “33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154 (1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information.” 17. The well settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, as cited supra, makes it crystal clear that under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., it is the mandatory duty of the Police Officer to register the case on a complaint of the cognizable offence by a citizen. The well settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, as cited supra, makes it crystal clear that under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., it is the mandatory duty of the Police Officer to register the case on a complaint of the cognizable offence by a citizen. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has levelled certain serious allegations against the fifth respondent Inspector of Police Kudavasal Police Station, Tiruvarur District for certain serious lapses and further the very same fifth respondent police registered all the Crimes namely, Crime Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11 as already stated. 18. The undisputed fact remains that the fifth respondent police inspite of receiving the complaints as stated above has not chosen to register the F.I.R.’s on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint. It is also painful to note that inspite of the representation made by the petitioner, the fifth respondent police or any other police officials raised their little finger to accord protection. As the petitioner and his family members apprehended serious threat of danger to their life and property, this court is constrained to pass an order on 22.06.2007 directing the concerned police officials to give immediate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members, but unfortunately as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, till date neither the petitioner nor his family members have been provided with any police protection. It is the duty of the police officials to give adequate security and protection to the life of any citizen who have come forward with such request by giving details of threats. This Court in view of the aforesaid reasons is of the considered view that this matter involving serious of occurrences requires effective investigation in accordance with law. It is also relevant to be noted that till date, the investigating agency is not able to show any progress in the investigation. This undisputed fact makes it crystal clear that there is laxity in the investigation. Therefore, this Court is constrained to transfer the investigations pending in respect of Crime Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2007 from the file of the fifth respondent police to some other independent investigating agency with a view to ensure fair and unbiased investigation. .19. This undisputed fact makes it crystal clear that there is laxity in the investigation. Therefore, this Court is constrained to transfer the investigations pending in respect of Crime Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2007 from the file of the fifth respondent police to some other independent investigating agency with a view to ensure fair and unbiased investigation. .19. Accordingly, the fifth respondent police is directed to send the case records and the materials collected by him in so far as the crime Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2007 are concerned, pending on his file to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tiruvarur District, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tiruvarur, on receipt of the case records in respect of the Crime Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2007 from the fifth respondent police shall constitute a team consisting of competent Inspector of Police and other police personnel and thereafter to investigate into the case relating to the Crime Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2007 and file a final report within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20. It is also made clear that in respect of the complaints stated to have been given by the petitioner as well as petitioner’s brother and mother, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tiruvarur should collect the complaints dated 19.01.2007 given by Karthikeyan, brother of the petitioner and complaint dated 21.01.2007, given by the mother Padmavathy and register the F.I.R. if the allegations contained in these complaints constitute cognizable offence. It is further made clear that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID should also enquire the petitioner herein in respect of his claim. 21. Inspite of a specific direction given by this court to give police protection to the petitioner and his family members, till date no police protection has been given to the petitioner and his family members. Therefore, this court is also constrained to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID to give adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members to their respective place of residence and as well as to their family properties situated at Kodasalai. 22. Therefore, this court is also constrained to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID to give adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members to their respective place of residence and as well as to their family properties situated at Kodasalai. 22. As the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that the petitioner is residing at Chennai along with his brother and other family members, this court was constrained to pass an order on 22.06.2007 directing The Director General of Police to make adequate arrangements for appropriate police protection to the petitioner and his family members at Chennai and therefore, the DGP also to give suitable instructions to the other police officials to give adequate police protection at Chennai. .23. In view of the gravity and seriousness of the offence and in view of the serious of occurrences stated to have been taken place in the same locality, the investigation carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police should be monitored by the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tiruvarur and it is also made clear that the investigating agency should submit periodical reports to Inspector General of Police Head Quarters, CBCID. 24. This Criminal Original petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.