Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2338 (MAD)

S. Sathish Kumar v. Director General of Police

2014-08-04

N.KIRUBAKARAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. The husband has come before this Court seeking the change of investigation and to entrust the same to the C.B.C.I.D in Crime No.280 of 2014. 2. The petitioner got married to his wife against the wishes of his wife's parents in the year 2008 as they belong to different communities. The petitioner has got two children. The petitioner at present is working in abroad and at that time, the petitioner's wife visited her parents, wherein, she was alleged to have been murdered in the name of “Honour Killing” by the parents of his wife and brother. However, the wife's father gave a complaint to the fourth respondent as if his son murdered her as the conduct of the petitioner's wife was not alright. Based on the said complaint, an F.I.R has been registered under Section 302 I.P.C by the fourth respondent. 3. Disputing the said F.I.R, the petitioner gave a representation on 25.06.2014 to the respondents including the third respondent contending that his wife was not killed by the son of the de-facto complainant, but by all the family members of the petitioner's wife including the de-facto complainant. Further, even as on date, no action has been taken and not even a statement was recorded. Hence, the petitioner has got an apprehension that the investigation is not properly done. Hence, he seeks transfer of investigation from the fourth respondent to the second respondent. 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents. 5. Without going into the merits of the case, the apprehension of the petitioner has to be viewed very seriously as he lost his wife, namely, the deceased. However, it does not mean that a new F.I.R can be registered, but if at all, the petitioner can give a statement, to the fourth respondent who has to record the same as per law. 6. In this case, it is seen that 12 witnesses were already examined including the petitioner. Only to clear the doubts which are lingering in the minds of the petitioner who lost his wife, it is appropriate to direct the third respondent to transfer the case from the fourth respondent to any other competent officer in the rank of Inspector of Police for proper investigation. However, it is made clear that this Court is not finding fault with the fourth respondent. However, it is made clear that this Court is not finding fault with the fourth respondent. The new Officer shall record the statement if not already recorded and investigate and file a final report as early as possible. It is also open to the new Officer to examine the two children of the petitioner who are alleged to have seen the occurrence as per the statement of the petitioner. 7. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is ordered. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.