Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to direct the 3rd respondent/Inspector of Police to take over the case in Crime No.8 of 2007 from the file of the 2nd respondent for investigation and proceed with the same as per law within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that she is a widow and has three children and that she has a meagre income. Her husband, Late Shanmugham was a functionary in D.M.D.K. Party. He contested as a DMDK candidate against a PMK Candidate, one Papi @ Govindasamy in the Local body election. The said Govindasamy threatened the petitioners husband to withdraw his nomination. The election result declared that an ADMK candidate has been elected. After declaration of election results, the defeated candidate Govindasamy and his supporters started to develop enmity with the petitioners husband. A false case was also registered against her husband in Crime No.436 of 2006 on an alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC. Her husband also was enlarged on bail in the said case. On 012. 2006, the said Govindasamy and 13 others came to the petitioners house with wooden sticks and used abusive language and thrashed them. The same was informed to the 2nd respondent through telephone and police protection was sought. This was not done. Thereafter, the petitioners husband lodged a written complaint with the 2nd respondent police on 012. 2006. No action was taken on the complaint. 3. On 04.01.2007, the petitioners husband went in search of two goats which were missing. The petitioners husband did not return within reasonable time. So, the petitioners father-in-law and others went in search of him. The petitioners father-in-law saw a gang near the pond near Vembamedu, who had immediately dispersed on seeking him. The petitioners father-in-law was shocked to see the petitioners husband lying in the shallow pond with injuries. The petitioner and others rushed to the spot. On the way, the said Govindasamy and 8 others were seen running from the opposite direction. The petitioners husband was immediately taken to hospital, where the Doctor declared that he was dead. 4. On 05.01.2007, the petitioners father-in-law preferred a complaint with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent registered a case under Section 174(c) of CrPC as "Suspicious Death". On the way, the said Govindasamy and 8 others were seen running from the opposite direction. The petitioners husband was immediately taken to hospital, where the Doctor declared that he was dead. 4. On 05.01.2007, the petitioners father-in-law preferred a complaint with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent registered a case under Section 174(c) of CrPC as "Suspicious Death". But the petitioner has alleged that her husband has been murdered. Further, she has stated that there is no possibility that her husbands death was a suspicious one. She has alleged that it was Murder and that this had happened due to strong political enmity, with the said Govindasamy. The said incident was published in the Daily Tamil News Paper. The petitioner had also pointed out to the 2nd respondent the names of the persons who are involved in the said crime. The petitioner stated that the 2nd respondent had not conducted the enquiry properly. As such, the 2nd respondent has acted against natural Justice and Rule of Law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. For the above said reason, the petitioner seeks the above direction. 5. Supporting her case, the petitioner has filed 8 documents including statements collected under Section 161 of CrPC. Post-mortem report, Observation Mahazar, etc. 6. The 2nd respondent/Inspector of Police has filed counter statement and resisted the petitioners claim. The 2nd respondent submitted that on the basis of complaint on 05.01.2007, he took up investigation of the case. The Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence and prepared information Mahazar, Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses. He also enquired panchayatars of the village namely (1) Deivasigamani (2) Arokiadas (3) Palani (4) Mohan and (5) Pandurangan and recorded their statements. The respondent police also enquired the petitioner, deceaseds brother and a few others on the sides of the petitioner and recorded their statements. 7. The investigation revealed that on 04.01.2007, at 05.00PM, the deceased/petitioners husband left the house to search for his goats. The next day, i.e. 05.01.2007, till 05.00AM, he has not turned back to his home. While so his family members searched for him in the village and other neighbouring areas, but the deceased was found in the water pond. His dress was on the shore of the pond. The next day, i.e. 05.01.2007, till 05.00AM, he has not turned back to his home. While so his family members searched for him in the village and other neighbouring areas, but the deceased was found in the water pond. His dress was on the shore of the pond. Immediately, he was taken to the Marakkanam Government Hospital, where the Doctor declared that the said Shamugham was dead. The body was sent for post-mortem to Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalapet, Pondicherry on 05.01.2007. The Post-mortem was also conducted by the Doctor of the said hospital on the same day and Post-mortem Certificate issued. In the Post-mortem Certificate, the Doctor has opined that the death was due to asphyxia. Further, on 05.01.2007, the viscera was sent to the Forensic Science Department, Vilupuram for Chemical Analysis. The viscera report was also given. After getting the opinion of the Doctor and the viscera report, the case was altered into Section 174 of CrPC on 10.03.2007. After completion of investigation on 10.03.2007, the case was referred as "Further Action Dropped" 8. As such, the 2nd respondent has alleged that he had investigated and conducted the case in a proper and fair manner and hence there is no necessity at this stage to transfer the case to some other agency. 9. After considering the petitioners affidavit and perusal of the documents of the petitioner and Counter statements of the 2nd respondent and after hearing the arguments, the Court is of the view that the 2nd respondent herein has done his duty in a fair and proper manner. The Court could not find any discrepancy about his enquiry in the said case. Hence, the Court is not inclined to transfer the 3rd respondent to take over the case in Crime No.8 of 2007 from the file of the 2nd respondent for investigation. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No.25602 of 2007 is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.