Judgment :- (Prayer: This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 6 herein to transfer the criminal case registered by the fifth respondent, the Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Orathanadu, Tanjore District in Crime No.137 of 2007 to the 7th respondent, C.B.I. and further direct the 7th respondent to investigate the said case within a time frame and submit a report to the court.) 1. The petitioner who was a sitting MLA at the relevant time representing T.Nagar Legislative Assembly constituency, has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to transfer the criminal case registered by the fifth respondent Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thajavur District in Crime No.137 of 2007 to the 7th respondent CBI and further to direct the 7th respondent to investigate the case within the time frame. 2. When the matter came up for admission on 6.3.2008, notice was ordered to the respondents. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil. 3. The petitioner's native place is Orathanadu. In his house at the native place, his father was staying with his family members. On the early morning on 06.04.2007, his house was attacked by 30 persons with deadly weapons. A motor cycle kept there was broken and properties were also damaged. When the petitioner's brother-in-law opened the door to take his father-in-law, he was also beaten on his head. The petitioner's father was also injured. Subsequently after damaging the properties and attacking the persons in the house, they escaped in three motor cycles and one load auto. The value of properties damaged was around Rs.75,000/-. He had requested the Station House Officer, i.e., the fifth respondent to take an appropriate action. The said complaint was received and registered as Crime No.136 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323 IPD and 3(1) of the Public Properties Damages Act around 3.30 a.m. As the petitioner was the then member of the Legislative Assembly, the matter was widely reported in the press. The matter was also raised on the floor or the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. As per the paper report enclosed in the typed set, the then Hon'ble Chief Minister promised to take action against culprits. The matter was also raised on the floor or the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. As per the paper report enclosed in the typed set, the then Hon'ble Chief Minister promised to take action against culprits. When nothing was forthcoming, the petitioner sent a written representation, dated 29.11.2007 to respondents 1 to 5 stating that even earlier he was threatened when he was in his assembly office at T.Nagar through mobile phone. A compliant was given to R-4 Pondy Bazaar Police Station. But, no action was taken. Subsequently, on the attack made on 06.04.2007, though a case was registered by the police, no one was arrested. Even his father was not questioned by the police. Since both incidents have some political background, the police are not taken proper steps. His father and his younger brother had gone to the police station several times and informed them that the attack was organized by the Panchayat union secretary belonged to DMK, by name M.Gandhi. Since there is no guarantee for his life or liberty, the case registered in Crime No.136 of 2007 should be transferred to the CBI or CBCID and culprits should be apprehended as early as possible. When there was no reply, the writ petition came to be filed. 4. In the counter affidavit sworn to by the third respondent, it was stated that 17 witnesses have been examined so far. The witnesses were not able to identify the real culprits. Unless the petitioner cooperates, it will not be possible for the police to identify the accused. Since it was happened in the early morning, there was no public to witness the occurrence. The Investigating Officer is yet to file a final report and he took much interest to identify the real culprits, but it ended in futile exercise. It was not correct to state that the ruling political party man dictated the investigating officer. It was also not correct to state that the father of the petitioner gave information that the DMK functionary M.Gandhi was responsible for the attack. If the petitioner gives political colour, the respondents would not be in a position to identify the real culprits and that the investigation agency will lead to darkness. Since the investigation was done in the manner known to law, there was no necessity to transfer the investigation from the fifth respondent. If the petitioner gives political colour, the respondents would not be in a position to identify the real culprits and that the investigation agency will lead to darkness. Since the investigation was done in the manner known to law, there was no necessity to transfer the investigation from the fifth respondent. It was not possible to seize the motor cycles and other properties used in the commission of offence due to non identification of culprits. The damages that occurred cannot be said to be to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. 5. This court also summoned the case diary to satisfy itself as to whether any worthwhile investigation was conducted. But it transpires that subsequent to the recording of statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and preparation of the sketch of the area in question, no further steps were taken except recording that necessary constables were posted for getting further details. Subsequently on 09.12.2007 (even before filing the writ petition), it was recorded that the accused will be identified very soon and he will get wound certificate from witnesses 1 and 3 and they will be submitted. Subsequent to these developments and after the receipt of the letter from the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, i.e., the third respondent by a letter dated 29.02.2008 had requested remarks of the fourth respondent as to whether he is recommending transfer of the case to CBCID or CBI. For this query, a report was sent by the Inspector of Police, fifth respondent, dated 14.3.2008 stating that appropriate steps have been taken to apprehend the accused and that there was no necessity to transfer the case to the CBCID. Thereafter, the only entry in the file was the information sent by the third respondent to the second respondent Director General of Police informing the pendency of the writ petition. 6. It was rather unfortunate that subsequent to the noting made on 09.12.2007, there has been no worthwhile investigation was done in the present case. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that the police have not done proper investigation and it requires a different agency cannot be found fault with. Though a promise was made in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly that culprits would be apprehended, even after four years investigation has not reached finality. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that the police have not done proper investigation and it requires a different agency cannot be found fault with. Though a promise was made in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly that culprits would be apprehended, even after four years investigation has not reached finality. In the counter affidavit except by stating that giving political colour to the case has delayed investigation, no satisfactory explanation was offered by the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District. The counter affidavit itself reads that police had reached a dead end and could not proceed further and have abruptly stopped the investigation after the year 2008 and that more than 4 years have elapsed, no worthwhile report has been sent to the learned Magistrate. Though in paragraph 5 of the counter it was stated that the investigating officer had examined several witnesses, but had not filed any final report. 7. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admn., reported in 1988 Supp SCC 482 held that if the police have not taken any action and acted in partisan manner to shield the real culprits, the trial court can be directed to exercise its power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and in paragraphs 6 and 7, the Supreme Court had observed as follows : "6.....Prima facie the police has acted in partisan manner to shield the real culprits and the investigation of the case has not been done in a proper and objective manner. We are therefore of the opinion that in the interest of justice it is necessary to get a fresh investigation made through an independent authority so that truth may be known. 7. Since according to the respondents charge-sheet has already been submitted to the Magistrate we direct the trial court before whom the charge-sheet has been submitted to exercise his powers under Section 173(8) CrPC to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation for proper and thorough investigation of the case. On issue of such direction the Central Bureau of Investigation will investigate the case in an independent and objective manner and it will further submit additional charge-sheet, if any, in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly." 8. On issue of such direction the Central Bureau of Investigation will investigate the case in an independent and objective manner and it will further submit additional charge-sheet, if any, in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly." 8. The Supreme Court in Rampal Pithwa Rahidas v. State of Maharashtra reported in1994 Supp (2) SCC 73 has set out the duties of the investigating agency and in paragraph 37, it was observed as follows : 37. “The quality of a nation's civilisation,” it is said, “can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law” and going by the manner in which the investigating agency acted in this case causes concern to us. In every civilised society the police force is invested with the powers of investigation of the crime to secure punishment for the criminal and it is in the interest of the society that the investigating agency must act honestly and fairly and not resort to fabricating false evidence or creating false clues only with a view to secure conviction because such acts shake the confidence of the common man not only in the investigating agency but in the ultimate analysis in the system of dispensation of criminal justice......" 9. Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that though the prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to transfer the investigation to the CBI, i.e., the 7th respondent, since in his representation the petitioner himself sought for alternate investigation either by the CBI or CBCID, his client would be satisfied if the investigation is done by the CBCID. 10. Hence, a direction is issued to the second respondent Director General of Police to direct the Crime No.136 of 2007 to be transferred to the file of the CBCID for investigation by an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police as expeditiously as possible and to file the final report with the appropriate jurisdictional Magistrate without fail. This writ petition will stand disposed of with the above terms. No costs.