Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3879 (MAD)

U. Sellamani v. State rep. by The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli

2014-10-16

P.DEVADASS

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner/defacto complainant, Sellamani since felt that investigation in Cr.No.326 of 2013 by the 2nd respondent is tardy and nil progress, wanted change of investigation agency. 2. The said Sellamani seems to have possessed of considerable items of jewels. He seems to be careless in preserving them. He was happy that he is having more than 60 sovereigns of jewels. But, it was short lived. The bureau in which jewels were kept was empty. It seems that some culprits have taken away the jewels. In these circumstances, he filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Ambasamudram (2nd respondent). A case in Cr.No.326 of 2013 was registered on 12.12.2013. 3. Now, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Cr.No.326 of 2013 is in cold storage. Not even a gram of jewel has been recovered. He submits that the Investigation Officer has not evinced any interest in tracing the culprits and in recovering the case properties/jewels. 4. This is a case of alleged commission of grave property crime. In this type of cases, the efficiency of the Police is mainly rest in their recovering the properties. 5. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that certain fingerprints have been lifted from the scene of crime and they have been sent to Finger Prints Bureau, Chennai for the purpose of comparison and the report is awaited. 6. As it is stated already huge quantity of jewels have been looted, quick investigation and tracing of the property are important. Delay in this regard will really defeat justice. 7. In the circumstances, the first respondent, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District (Rural) will direct the second respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, Ambasamudram Police Station, to pursue his investigation in Cr.No.326 of 2013, diligently, even by forming a special team to trace the culprits and also recover the jewels and the first respondent also will monitor the investigation done by the second respondent. 8. With this direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.