Judgment : The petitioner herein has filed the above criminal original petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction upon the second and third respondents herein to conduct further investigation in Crime No.511 of 2005, on the file of the third respondent herein as per the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.6088 of 2006, dated 03.03.2006, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Tuticorin. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- One Subramaniam had lodged a complaint before the third respondent Police stating that one Dinesh, son of Muthupandi, aged about 15 years, who was working as a labourer with M/s.Maries Associates. While he was working in the said factory, he was electrocuted on 07.08.2000. Immediately, he had been rushed to AVM Hospital by the Administrative Official namely A.V.M.Mani, who colluded with Dr.Lakshman and with Assistant Dayalan had burnt the dead body. This matter was not disclosed to the Police authorities. 3. After receipt of the said complaint, the third respondent Inspector of Police, Thattapparai Police Station, Tuticorin, did not take any action on the said complaint. Hence, the said Subramaniam had filed a direction petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3479 of 2005. 4. This Court, after hearing both sides, directed the third respondent Police to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 20.08.2000. The direction was given on 12.04.2005 with a condition that the case should be registered within a period of one month. However, the respondent Police after one month i.e., on 03.07.2005 registered FIR in Crime No.511 of 2005, on the file of the third respondent Police for the alleged offence under Sections 304 and 201 I.P.C. 5. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police has filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin, stating that the case has been referred as a mistake of fact and observed that the deceased had expired due to illness and he was admitted at A.V.M.Hospital, wherein he had expired after medical treatment. Hence, the respondent Police requested the learned Judicial Magistrate to close the said criminal case as a mistake of fact. 6. Hence, the respondent Police requested the learned Judicial Magistrate to close the said criminal case as a mistake of fact. 6. Not being satisfied with the report of the investigation officer, the defacto complainant had filed a protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.1688 of 2006, stating that regarding the death of Dinesh, controversial statements have arisen in the final report submitted by the investigation officer and the actual truth had not come out. Hence, he prayed to reject the final report of the investigation officer. 7. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin, on 03.03.2006, had ordered to conduct further investigation in this case by examining the required material witnesses and perusing relevant documents and file the final report. 8. Thereafter, the defacto complainant had sent a representation and mentioned 20 persons for examination to find out the death of Dinesh, even then there is no proper investigation. Therefore, the defacto complainant namely R.Subramaniam, once again approached the Court by way of a direction petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4037 of 2013, in Crime No.511 of 2005, on the file of the third respondent Police herein and prayed this Court to withdraw and transfer the investigation in Crime No.511 of 2005 from the file of the Inspector of Police, Thattapparai Police Station to the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Madurai or some other agency. While this petition is pending, the petitioner had expired. As such, the said petition has become abated. 9. The said offence, being a public crime, one Mr.Andi had sent a representation on 10.10.2013 to the third respondent herein to take necessary action in the interest of justice regarding the death of Dinesh. After receipt of the said representation, the Inspector of Police, remains silent. Therefore, the above direction petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the second and third respondents herein to conduct further investigation in Crime No.511 of 2005, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thattapparai Police Station, Tuticorin District. 10. The highly competent counsel for the petitioner has argued that the third respondent had not conducted a proper enquiry on the death of Dinesh, who was a child labourer with the M/s.Maries Association. 11. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that the father of the deceased had given a statement stating that his son Dinesh had expired due to illness and as such it was a natural death. 11. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that the father of the deceased had given a statement stating that his son Dinesh had expired due to illness and as such it was a natural death. If it is so, he has to conduct the death ceremony but the body was criminated by General Manager of the company for which Dr.Lakshman and Assistant Dayalan had extended their co-operation in order to conceal the matter. The investigation officer had filed a report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin, who in turn ordered further investigation in this case passed in protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.1688 of 2006, which is already existing and in operation. Therefore, the Judicial Order of the learned Magistrate, which was in force, but the same had not been complied with by the third respondent herein. 12. The very competent counsel has submitted further that the defacto complainant had listed 20 eye witnesses to establish the prosecution case, which is a heinous crime, therefore any member of the public can take action in the interest of justice. The final report has been filed by the third respondent is not crystal clear regarding the death of Dinesh. The father of the deceased had given 161 Cr.P.C., Statement, which also is not bearing transparency regarding the nature of illness, mode of medical treatment, time, date and place in the death of Dinesh followed by a death ceremony. Hence, the very competent counsel expects the Court to give a suitable order to CBCID for further and comprehensive investigation to determine the actual death of the said Dinesh. 13. The highly competent counsel for the the State has submitted that initially one Subramaniam had lodged a complaint before the third respondent Police for the death of Dinesh, who is a stranger and not connected with the said case whatsoever. However, the dutiful Police Officer had conducted an oral enquiry on the said complaint and found there was no prima facie case. However, the dutiful Police Officer had conducted an oral enquiry on the said complaint and found there was no prima facie case. Therefore, the Inspector of Police had not acted upon the said case, subsequently the said defacto complainant had filed a direction petition before this Court and this Court had directed the third respondent herein to register a case and accordingly a criminal case had been registered in Crime No.511 of 2005 on the file of the third respondent Police, who had conducted a detailed and comprehensive enquiry and he found that there is no prima facie case. Hence, he filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin, stating that the case has been referred as a mistake of fact. 14. The very competent counsel has submitted further that the third party namely Subramaniam had filed a direction petition before this Court to transfer the case to some other competent agency. The said direction petition is not maintainable since the learned Judicial Magistrate's order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1688 of 2006, which had been filed by the defacto complainant as a protest petition. The said order directing the third respondent herein to conduct further investigation, as such the direction petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4037 of 2003 and the present direction in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18327 of 2013 are not maintainable since the petitioner is seeking one more parallel judicial order. Further, there is no lacuna in the final report of the third respondent or no lack of service on the part of the Inspector of Police. Hence, the very competent counsel for the State requests the Court to dismiss the above direction petition. 15. The learned counsel has specifically pointed out that the biological father of the deceased has categorically stated in his 161 Cr.P.C., statement that his son Dinesh had expired due to his illness, which is tantamount to natural death. Therefore, the third party petition does not bear much value. 16. Per contra, the competent counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had sent a representation to the third respondent herein and listed 20 witnesses for examination in order to find out the veracity of the case. If this Hon'ble Court transfers the case to some other competent agency, no one will be prejudiced, at the same time if a fair enquiry is conducted the public confidence will be maintained since the offence is a heinous crime. If this Hon'ble Court transfers the case to some other competent agency, no one will be prejudiced, at the same time if a fair enquiry is conducted the public confidence will be maintained since the offence is a heinous crime. 17. From the above discussion, this Court is of the view that: i. The biological father of the deceased had not given detailed statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., before the third respondent herein regarding his son's nature of illness proceeding the death of his son i.e., date, time, place and funeral procedures; ii. The defacto complainant had listed 20 relevant witnesses to prove the prosecution case, but those persons were not examined; iii. The learned Judicial Magistrate's order passed in the protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.1688 of 2006 in Crime No.511 of 2005 for further investigation ordered to the third respondent herein, on 09.11.2005, the same had not been carried out by the third respondent herein; iv. As per the complaint of the defacto complainant, the deceased had been electrocuted at the place of employment and to prove the same the list of 20 witnesses, who are attached to the place of employment and hospital authorities, therefore they are necessary witnesses in the instant case, v. The death of the deceased Dinesh is an unnatural one as per the contention of the petitioner, therefore an elaborate and comprehensive enquiry is absolutely necessary in the instant case; and vi. If further enquiry is to be conducted, no one will be prejudiced and no hardship will be caused to any person. 18. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and as per the views mentioned above ie., i to vi, this Court is inclined to direct the third respondent herein to transfer the entire case records relating to Crime No.511 of 2005, to the second respondent herein, for further comprehensive investigation. The first respondent shall monitor the proceedings as required. This Order to be carried out forthwith after receipt of the order. The earlier direction petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4037 of 2013 is closed since the petitioner had expired as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 19. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is ordered.