Judgment :- The petitioner G. Neela has sought for a direction to the first respondent herein, namely the Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram to appoint any competent person to investigate the case in Crime No.329/2004 on the file of the second respondent and to file a charge sheet as early as possible. The said case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. for the death of Selvam, the son of the petitioner herein alleging that she suspected that her son’s death could have been caused by one Arumugam, whose daughter by name Prema was in love with Selvam. Contending that the investigation over the death of the deceased Selvam was not properly done by the second respondent, the petitioner has made the above said prayer by filing the present petition invoking the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. This court heard the submissions made by Mr. P. Vijendran learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr. I. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents. This court paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that her son Selvam fell in love with one Prema, daughter of Arumugam and the said Arumugam and his family members were dead against the said love affair; that in 2003, the said Prema eloped with Selvam to Thittakudi; that at that point of time the above said Arumugam and their family members made false assurance to them to solemnize their marriage and with such false assurance, the girl was taken by their parents; that thereafter the said Arumugam, instead of honouring his assurance, chose to lodge a complaint against Selvam with the second respondent for the offence of kidnapping and rape and that Selvam was arrested by the second respondent. It is the further contention of the petitioner that despite such developments, the love affair between Selvam and Prema grew stronger and under such circumstances, her son Selvam was found death under suspicious circumstances on 18.06.2004 with blood stains and blood injury on the head; that though a case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C in Crime No.329/2004 on the file of the second respondent, the second respondent, without properly conducting investigation, informed the petitioner that the case was closed and that hence the petitioner was constrained to approach this court for a necessary direction for re-investigation of the case under the supervision of any competent police officer or by an investigating agency such as CB CID. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was an unruly haste in closing the case without conducting proper investigation. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that, after conducting proper enquiry and on perusing the postmortem certificate and also the final opinion of the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy, the second respondent came to the conclusion that it was a suicide by consumption of poison and hence closed the case dropping further investigation. 5. This court directed to production of the CD file and perused the same. Apart from the postmortem certificate and the final opinion of the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy based on the report of the Forensic Lab that the stomach and intestine of the deceased and their contents contained organo phosphorous compound, the other materials available in the CD file are only the statements of the petitioner and one Pachiappa Mudaliar, Sekar and Neela. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Pachiappa Mudaliar is a persons residing in the opposite house of the girl’s father Arumugam. Furthermore, the final opinion of the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Chengalpattu Medical College, Chengalpattu is to the effect that the deceased would appear to have died of the effects of organo phosphorous compound poisoning. Without probing the matter further in a proper manner, to find out whether it could be a suicide by poisoning or a homicide and if it is a suicide, whether there was any abetment, the second respondent seems to have simply dropped the matter by reciting the opinion of the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Chengalpattu Medical College, Chengalpattu. Without probing the matter further in a proper manner, to find out whether it could be a suicide by poisoning or a homicide and if it is a suicide, whether there was any abetment, the second respondent seems to have simply dropped the matter by reciting the opinion of the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Chengalpattu Medical College, Chengalpattu. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suspected persons were not at all examined by the second respondent and no attempt was made by the second respondent to examine them, cannot be brushed aside an untenable. In fact, the petitioner has also named certain persons to be the persons suspected to have caused the death of the deceased and such persons have not been examined. It seems no person seems to have been examined by the second respondent during his investigation of the case regarding the alleged elopement and registration of the case against the deceased on the file of the second respondent on the previous occasion. In fact the said aspect had not been adverted to and the investigation had not been directed on the said lines. 6. In view of the above, this court is satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are some lapses and laxity on the part of the second respondent in investigating the case and that hence the matter needs re-investigation by an officer to be named by the first respondent, namely the Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed and reinvestigation of the case in Cr.No.329 of 2004 on the file of the second respondent is ordered. The first respondent shall issue necessary orders naming an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in his unit for re-investigating the case within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and such officer should conduct and complete re-investigation and submit a final report as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months. The second respondent is directed to have over the CD file to such an officer named by the first respondent.