Judgment :- This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for transferring Cr.No.134/2007 registered on the file of Arani Rural Police Station to the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Vellore for fresh investigation. 2. The petitioners herein are the parents of deceased Vinayagam, who was a sippoy in the Indian Army. When he had come on leave, he was reported to have met with a road accident on 16.04.2007 and admitted at the first instance in Government hospital, Arani. Later on he was referred to the CMC hospital, Vellore, as the Government hospital, Arani did not have the facilities to provide proper treatment since the condition of the deceased was critical. Thus, he was admitted in the CMC hospital, Vellore in the intensive care ward for treatment. One Priyadarshini was the wife of the deceased Vinayagam. As the family members of the deceased, including the petitioners herein desired to have the treatment for Vinayagam in the Military hospital at Tambaram, Chennai, they took the deceased from CMC hospital, Vellore to Chennai. But, unfortunately, on the way to Tambaram, the deceased Vinayagam breathed his last and the petitioners took the dead body back to the Government hospital, Arani, where autopsy was conducted. 3. A case was registered on the file of Arani Rural Police Station as Cr.No.134/2007 based on the complaint of one Muniyandi, son of Kannan, residing at No.57D, Pallikooda Street, Arani, initially for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC against the deceased Vinayagam as it had been informed by the said complainant that the deceased in an attempt to overtake a bus that was proceeding in front of the motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-25 F-8074 which the deceased was riding, caused an accident by hitting the complainant, who was proceeding in a cycle. The said case was registered based on the statement recorded by the police at the Government hospital, Arani, who arrived there pursuant to the intimation issued by the hospital authorities regarding the admission of the above said Muniyandi. In the said complaint itself, it has been stated that the person responsible for the accident, namely Vinayagam also fell down from his motorcycle and sustained injuries on the left frontal region of his head and also the left leg. In the said complaint itself, it has been stated that the person responsible for the accident, namely Vinayagam also fell down from his motorcycle and sustained injuries on the left frontal region of his head and also the left leg. It seems the deceased Vinayagam was also taken to the very same hospital, where he was given first aid treatment and referred to the CMC hospital, Vellore for better management, as his condition was found to be critical. Thus the deceased was treated at CMC hospital, Vellore and then taken to Tambaram for being admitted in the military hospital. On the way to Tambaram, he succumbed to the injuries and the dead body was again taken to Arani government hospital for postmortem examination. 4. On receipt of the intimation regarding the death of Vinayagam, the case was altered by altering the case into one for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC from Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy, has opined that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. The vehicle in which the deceased was travelling was also examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who noted the damage caused to the vehicle and gave a report incorporating an opinion to the effect that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect found in the vehicle. As the respondent, on investigation was satisfied that it was a case of accident caused by the deceased riding a motorcycle by hitting against the informant Muniyandi, who was proceeding in a bicycle in the opposite direction, in an attempt made by the deceased to overtake a bus and that the rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased was the cause of the accident. In line with the said conclusion, the respondent has chosen to close the criminal case as the charge against the said Vinayagam abated on his death and submitted a final report to that effect on 05.05.2007. Though such a final report closing the case as charge stood abated due to the death of the accused was submitted on 05.05.2007 itself, the petitioners kept quiet for nearly a year and were trying to get compassionate appointment for one of their sons and claiming a share in the family pension. Though such a final report closing the case as charge stood abated due to the death of the accused was submitted on 05.05.2007 itself, the petitioners kept quiet for nearly a year and were trying to get compassionate appointment for one of their sons and claiming a share in the family pension. On 2o.04.2008, nearly after a year from the date of closure of the case, the petitioners chose to submit a representation to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, New Delhi, as if their son Vinayagam was murdered by his own wife with the help of her henchmen. Till then petitioners did not give any representation or complaint to the police to the effect that they suspect the wife of the deceased to have caused the death of the deceased. Only in the year 2009 on 03.04.2009, the petitioners have chosen to send a representation to the Superintendent of Police in this regard. Immediately thereafter on 17.04.2009 itself the present petition was prepared and the same was filed on 20.04.2009. 5. Only in the year 2009 on 03.04.2009, the petitioners have chosen to send a representation to the Superintendent of Police in this regard. Immediately thereafter on 17.04.2009 itself the present petition was prepared and the same was filed on 20.04.2009. 5. The petitioners contend that their son Vinayagam, who had come to his native place in the first week of April 2007, went to Arani along with the petitioners to borrow money from State Bank of India, Arni branch; that the petitioners returned home at about 9.15 p.m; that the deceased Vinayagam on receipt of a call from his wife Priyadharshini proceeded to Satthu Madurai village in Vellore District to meet his wife; that the petitioners, on reaching their village contacted the deceased Vinayagam over phone using a public telephone when they contacted at 10.00 p.m; that Vinayagam who answered the call, during the middle of the conversation, abruptly disconnected the call; that within 15 minutes thereafter, at about 10.15 p.m, they received a phone call from Priyadharshini, wife of Vinayagam informing the petitioners that Vinayagam was injured in an accident and was admitted in the government hospital, Arani; that when they went to Arani government hospital, they informed them of the shifting of the deceased to CMC hospital, Vellore; that when they visited CMC hospital at about 11.30 p.m on 16.04.2007 they saw Vinayagam in coma stage with injuries on left cheek, eye, forehead and back; that the doctors compelled the petitioners to take the deceased home as he would not survive; that at that point of time, Priyadharshini, wife of Vinayagam, her mother Parimala, her father Perumal Gounder and three persons viz. Vilwanathan, Kumar and Krishnamurthy were present in the hospital; that the petitioners were able to see the absence of any remorse in the face of Priyadharshini; that after the death of their son, they came to know that there was a foul play on the part of the Priyadharshi and the members of her parents family and that the petitioners believed that the deceased was murdered by the henchmen of Priyadharshini. 6. The point for consideration in this petition is "whether a direction for fresh investigation by CBCID as prayed from by the petitioners should be issued?" 7. The submissions made by Mr.G.Annamalai, learned counsel for the petitioners and by Mr.I.Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), representing the respondent were heard. 6. The point for consideration in this petition is "whether a direction for fresh investigation by CBCID as prayed from by the petitioners should be issued?" 7. The submissions made by Mr.G.Annamalai, learned counsel for the petitioners and by Mr.I.Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), representing the respondent were heard. The materials available in the form of typed set of papers and produced in the form of CD file were also perused. 8. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased Vinayagam, a sippoy in the Indian Army, who died on 17.04.2007. He had come on leave to his native place in the first week of April 2007. One Priyadharshini was his wife and they have got a daughter by name Leena. The deceased Vinayagam was first admitted in the government hospital, Arni on 16.04.2007 with injuries on the head and other parts. The hospital authorities were informed that he sustained injuries in a road accident that took place at about 9.00 p.m on 16.04.2007 near Raghunathapuram Koot Road. As the condition of the deceased was critical, he was referred to the CMC hospital, Vellore and was given treatment there, as an in-patient. While so, the petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased Vinayagam, on their arrival at CMC hospital, Vellore, thought it fit to shift him to the military hospital at Tambaram, Chennai. But, unfortunately, on their way from Vellore to Chennai, the deceased Vinayagam succumbed to the injuries whereupon the dead body was taken back to Arani government hospital for postmortem examination. 9. On 16.04.2007 itself, one Muniyandi was admitted in the government hospital, Arani with injuries for treatment. He informed the hospital authorities that he sustained the injuries as he was hit by the motorcycle in which the deceased Vinayagam was travelling. An intimation was sent to the police, pursuant to which the police went to the government hospital, Arani and recorded the statement of the said Muniyandi. Based on the said statement, a case was registered against the deceased Vinayagam for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. An intimation was sent to the police, pursuant to which the police went to the government hospital, Arani and recorded the statement of the said Muniyandi. Based on the said statement, a case was registered against the deceased Vinayagam for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. In the statmenet, the said Muniyandi had furnished information to the police that the deceased Vinayagam acted in a rash and negligent manner by hitting the informant who was proceeding in a bicycle by carelessly and rashly overtaking a bus which was coming in the direction opposite to the direction in which the cyclist was proceeding. 10. After the receipt of intimation regarding the death of Vinayagam, the case was altered into one for offences punishable under sections 279 and 304-A. After following necessary formalities of conducting inquest and having the autopsy done, the respondent herein/investigating officer closed the case as charge abated due to the death of the accused and submitted a final report to that effect to the jurisdictional magistrate on 05.05.2007 itself. Even thereafter, nearly for a year the petitioners did not even raise their index finger against Priyadharshini or others accusing them of murdering the deceased Vinayagam and setting up the same as if it were an accident. After a lapse of nearly a year, probably when the petitioners felt it impossible to make their daughter-in-law to come to terms with them regarding the sharing of the family pension and the right to get appointment on compassionate ground, they have chosen to send petitions to the Ministry of Defence for conducting an enquiry regarding the death of Vinayagam as they suspected him to have been murdered by Priyadharshini and the members of her parents family. It seems, on such an enquiry being made by the defence personnel, the said contention of the petitioners was found to be one made out of frustration and without any truth in it. Under such circumstances alone, after a lapse of nearly two years from the date of death of Vinayagam, the petitioners have chosen to send a representation to the Superintendent of Police, as if the death of Vinayagam was not an accident and the same was a planned murder. The said representation was sent on 03.04.2009. Under such circumstances alone, after a lapse of nearly two years from the date of death of Vinayagam, the petitioners have chosen to send a representation to the Superintendent of Police, as if the death of Vinayagam was not an accident and the same was a planned murder. The said representation was sent on 03.04.2009. Within a period of nearly two weeks thereafter, without giving a sufficient time after the presentation of such representation, the petitioners have come forward with the present petition seeking a direction to transfer the said criminal cases for de novo investigation by CBCID. 11. This court, after going through the entire materials placed before this court, is of the considered view that there is no substance in the contention raised by the petitioners herein in their representation made to the Superintendent of Police and in the petition filed herein. The postmortem report makes it clear that the petitioner died due to head injuries. The motorcycle in which the deceased was proceeding was also seized and produced before the Motor Vehicle Inspector Gr.I for his examination. The Motor Vehicle Inspector also noted the damage caused to the vehicle and expressed his opinion that the accident took place not due to any mechanical defect, thereby meaning that human error was the cause of the accident. Muniyandi, the de-facto complainant had lodged a complaint on 16.04.2007 itself, based on which the case was registered as an accident case. His statement was recorded in the hospital after the police received an intimation from the hospital when he had been admitted with injuries sustained in the accident. When the deceased was admitted in the very same hospital, the hospital authorities were informed that he sustained injuries in a road accident as his motorcycle dashed with a cycle. 12. On the other hand, the petitioners simply expressed their suspicion that their son could have been murdered by the persons engaged by his wife Priyadharshini, because the deceased, according to them, reprimanded Priyadharshini for her illegal contact with another man and her infidelity. The said accusation was not forthcoming initially. It was made for the first time only after a year from the date of occurrence. The said accusation was not forthcoming initially. It was made for the first time only after a year from the date of occurrence. It is obvious that the petitioners, who failed in their attempt to share the death benefits of the deceased, including the privilege to get compassionate appointment for one of the members in the family, as an afterthought have chosen to make such drastic and untenable allegations against the wife of the deceased who had lost her husband in her prime youth. The story propounded by the petitioners shall not be probable. It is their case that the deceased was waylaid by the henchmen of Priyadharshini, who after attacking Vinayagam, took him to the hospital and tried to make it appear as a case of accident. If at all they wanted to kill the deceased Vinayagam, they would not have chosen to leave him alive after attacking and chosen to get him admitted in the hospital. Any prudent man will expect the injured person to regain consciousness before death and in such an event inform the medical officer or the police as to what actually happened to him. The fact that the deceased had been admitted in the hospital and his wife, wifes parents and other people were present in the hospital, would show that the present contention of the petitioners is highly improbable and untenable. 13. Apart from that, the petitioners, at the time of inquest did not express any doubt regarding the fact that their son met with an accident and died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The inquest report makes it clear. Though the final report closing the case as abated was submitted on 05.05.2007 itself, they had not chosen to challenge the same by preferring a private complaint within a reasonable time thereafter. The postmortem report shows the following injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. A deep lacerated wound on the occipital area of skull measuring 7 x 1 cm and irregular in shape; 2. A deep lacerated wound (L) Temporo parietal region measuring 5 x 1 cm irregular in shape and black in colour; 3. An abrasion on the right side of Forehead measuring 4 x ½ cm and black in colour; 4. An abrasion over the right Knee joint measuring 3 x ½ cm; 5. A deep lacerated wound (L) Temporo parietal region measuring 5 x 1 cm irregular in shape and black in colour; 3. An abrasion on the right side of Forehead measuring 4 x ½ cm and black in colour; 4. An abrasion over the right Knee joint measuring 3 x ½ cm; 5. An abrasion over the left Knee joint measuring 2 x ½ cm and black in colour; 6. An abrasion on the dorsum of right foot 5 in number each measuring 1 x ½ cm black in colour; and 7. Deep Ecchymosis constusion around (L) eye measuring 5 x 5 cm and black in colour. 14. The photographs of the deceased also shows that the injuries were caused only in the accident. In addition to that, after the petitioners have chosen to give a representation to the Superintendent of Police expressing suspicion that the deceased would have been murdered by his wife and others, Priyadharshini, the wife of the deceased was also examined by the respondent. In the said statement, she has made it clear that, after funeral ceremony was over, the first petitioner compelled her to marry Palani, the second son of the petitioners, which was declined by her; that there after the petitioners demanded payment of half of the pension which was also declined by her and that the representation of the petitioners has been given with ulterior motive to coerce her to meet with the untenable demands of the petitioners. 15. This court, after taking into consideration all the above said aspects and the entire facts and circumstances of the case, is of the considered view that the petitioners have not made out a case for the exercise of the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct a de novo investigation or a further investigation of the case in Cr.No.134/2007 registered on the file of Arani Rural Police Station by a specialised agency like CBCID. There is no merit in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.