Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to transfer the investigation in Crime No.85 of 2007, pending investigation on the file of Inspector of police, Thiagadurgam Police Station, Villupuram District, to any other independent agency, more particularly CBCID, Villupuram. 2. The petitioner has submitted that her son, one Thirunavukkarasu, aged about 27 years was living with the petitioners brother, one Ramalingam for the past 25 years at Thiagadurgam. The said Ramalingam has been separated from his wife and son, namely Alamelu and Murugan respectively for the past 28 years. The said Thirunavukkarasu was found dead at the residence of the said Ramalingam on 19.02.2007 under suspicious circumstances. On the said day, the said Ramalingam was away in his native place and when he returned on 20.02.2007 he was informed by the villagers that petitioners son had committed suicide by hanging. On the said occurrence, the Village Administrative Officer preferred a complaint with the respondent police. The same was registered as crime No. 85 of 2007 under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem report had indicated that there are some antimortem injuries, more particularly, rope mark present over the neck, above the thyroid cartilege, below the chin obliquely placed directly along the line of mandibla behind the ears. The petitioner has further alleged that her brother Ramalingam, after coming to his residence, noticed that some valuable articles and money were missing. Then, he lodged a complaint with the respondent police against his wife and son. The petitioner submitted that her son had no reason to commit suicide and there is strong suspicion that the victim might have been done to death by Murugan, son of Ramalingam, Alamelu, wife of Ramalingam, Tamilarasan, son of Rajagopala Chettiar, Krishnaveni, wife of Mani Chettiar. Further, the petitioners son was living with her brother, Ramalingam. So, Ramalingams wife and son, who have been separated from him, developed enmity with the said victim, since Thirunavukkarasu will succeed the property of Ramalingam. 3. Regarding this difference of opinion, already legal notice was also issued to the victim. After death of the said Thirunavukkarasu, the police registered a case under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code. Till date, there is no progress or the respondent police did not investigate the matter to ascertain the cause of the death of said Thirunavukkarasu. 3. Regarding this difference of opinion, already legal notice was also issued to the victim. After death of the said Thirunavukkarasu, the police registered a case under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code. Till date, there is no progress or the respondent police did not investigate the matter to ascertain the cause of the death of said Thirunavukkarasu. The petitioners brother, Ramalingam, also sent a petition to the District Collector. 4. The Respondent has filed counter statement in the above Criminal Original Petition stating that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Village Administrative Officer, he has registered a case in Crime No 85 of 2007 for an offence under section 174 Criminal Procedure Code dated 20.02.2007. In that complaint, the Village Administrative Officer narrated that he had received information about the death of Thirunavukkarasu, rushed to the spot and made an enquiry. The neighbours and relatives of the deceased revealed that the said Thirunavukkarasu died by hanging himself. The Sub-Inspector of police conducted enquiry in the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of witnesses, also conducted inquest in the presence of panchayatdars and the dead body was sent to Government Hospital, Kallkurichi. The Sub Inspector of police had enquired the below mentioned persons namely 1) Rajan, Village Administrative Officer 2) Ramalingam, uncle of the deceased 3) Kannan, father of the deceased 4) Ravichandran, neighbour 5) Annamalai, a councillor in the Village, 6) Kumaran, Village Assistant 7) the petitioner herein 8) Bhuvaneswari, neighbour 9) Alamelu, w/o Ramalingam 10) Murugan, s/o Ramalingam 11)Ramachandran, neighbour 12) Murugan, neighbour 13) Sathyanarayan 14) Mayavan, who are the mahazar witnesses and recorded their statements. Further, on enquiry, the deceased Thirunavukkarasu was suffering from severe stomach ache which was corroborated by the deceaseds uncle, Ramalingam. The Village Administrative Officer and Villagers have also corroborated the same version of the complaint. The suspected person, Alamelu and Murugan also had given the same statement. The medical report received with regard to hyoid bone, mentioned that it was intact. The doctors opinion was that the deceased would appear to have died of asphysia due to hanging. On the basis of the above mentioned reports, further action was dropped on 12.05.2007. 5. The Learned counsels argued on behalf of their respective parties. The medical report received with regard to hyoid bone, mentioned that it was intact. The doctors opinion was that the deceased would appear to have died of asphysia due to hanging. On the basis of the above mentioned reports, further action was dropped on 12.05.2007. 5. The Learned counsels argued on behalf of their respective parties. The court is of the view, after considering the contentions of the petitioner and counter statements of the respondents, that the respondent police had duly conducted enquiry, especially suspected persons, which was mentioned by the petitioner and after enquiry, investigation, and upon perusing postmortem report, medical report and neighbours statements, Village Administrative Officers statements and Statement of relatives, the Respondent police had dropped the action. In the conclusion arrived at by the respondent police, there is no discrepancy. Hence, the court rejects the claim of the petitioner and thus the petition has got to be dismissed.