Judgment 1. The petitioner, who belongs to the scheduled caste community and whose marriage with a girl, belonging to the most backward community, has led to his whole world turning upside down within a short span of time, eventually leading to the death of the girl, has come up with the above writ petition, seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus primarily to transfer the investigation relating to the death of the girl and to grant various other reliefs. 2. I have heard Mrs.U.Nirmalarani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.R. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition mainly seeking the entrustment of the investigation relating to the death of one C.Vimaladevi of Polipatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District to the Central Bureau of Investigation (the 3rd respondent herein) and for the grant of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for the death of C.Vimaladevi due to the gross negligence and complicity played by the respondents in that crime. He also further prayed for initiation of departmental as well as criminal proceedings against the police officials responsible for her death. 4. The petitioner claims that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and was a permanent resident of Polipatti village, Usilampatti Taluk. According to the petitioner, all hell broke loose after he married a girl belonging to the Piranmalai Kallar caste, classified as a Most Backward community. The case of the petitioner is that the couple was forcibly separated and the girl was killed. Therefore, claiming that his life is in danger at the hands of his wife’s (late C.Vimaladevi) parents and their community people as well as by the local police, the petitioner has now taken shelter at the Tamil Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front, having headquarters at Chennai. Thereafter, he has come up with the above writ petition, for the reliefs stated supra. Hence, in these special circumstances, the writ petition was entertained at the Principal Bench, as the petitioner, who stays at Chennai, apprehends danger to his life at his native place and cannot go there even for filing a case. 5. At that time, when the matter came up for admission on 10.10.2014, while ordering notice in the writ petition, I passed the following interim order : “Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 5. At that time, when the matter came up for admission on 10.10.2014, while ordering notice in the writ petition, I passed the following interim order : “Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. He is directed to file a counter on 20.10.2014. Post on 20.10.2014. In the meantime, the investigation by the present investigating officer shall not proceed further.” 6. I was informed at that time, that a first information report was lodged in the Usilampatti Town Police Station in Crime No.308 of 2014 under Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code read with Sections 176 and 201, Indian Penal Code. The said first information report was registered on 2.10.2014 by the Station House Officer, Usilampatti Town Police Station on the basis of a complaint given by one P.Selvan, Village Administrative Officer of Boothipuram Village. The names of one Chinnasamy alias Veeranan and his wife Thenammal, who are the parents of the deceased C.Vimaladevi, are shown as accused in that first information report. As it was alleged that C.Vimaladevi was murdered and the body was charred to death so as to make it appear to be a case of suicide and that the local police was in connivance with the relatives and parents of the deceased, I was constrained to grant a stay of further investigation by the local police. 7. Subsequently, a counter affidavit was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District together with a set of documents. The original file relating to the Crime No.308 of 2014 was also circulated for my perusal. 8. 7. Subsequently, a counter affidavit was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District together with a set of documents. The original file relating to the Crime No.308 of 2014 was also circulated for my perusal. 8. The case of the petitioner, as it unfolds in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste community; that while working as a driver to one Chinnasamy, he and Chinnasamy's daughter fell in love with each other; that Chinnasamy belongs to Piranmalai Kallar Community, which is declared as a Most Backward Community (MBC) in Tamil Nadu; that when the parents of the girl (Vimaladevi) started making arrangements for her marriage with some other person, both of them left the village and got married on 22.7.2014 at the Pragatheeswarar Temple at Vriddachalam; that at the time of their marriage the petitioner was above 21 years of age and the deceased Vimaladevi was aged 20 years; that since it was an inter-caste marriage, the parents of Vimaladevi opposed the same; that therefore the couple went to Palakkad at Kerala and appeared before the Pattambi Police Station at Palakkad and informed them about their marriage; that in the meanwhile, the father of Vimaladevi lodged a complaint in Crime No. 244 of 2014 dated 22.7.2014 before the Usilampatti Town Police Station alleging that her daughter was missing from the house since the night of 20.7.2014 and the Station House Officer registered the first information report under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code; that policemen belonging to the Usilampatti Police Station came to Kerala; that after assuring the Pattambi Police that they will bring back the couple after holding an enquiry, the Usilampatti police brought the couple to Usilampatti on 25.7.2014; that at that stage, the petitioner sought help from Tamil Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front, Madurai District as well as from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and All India Democratic Women Association(AIDWA); that the Madurai District Secretary of the CPI (M) apprised the Superintendent of Police, Madurai about the background of the case and about his apprehension that the lives of the couple were in danger; that ignoring all the caution, they were taken to the Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti on 25.7.2014 where about 200 persons belonging to the Kallar Community along with the parents of Vimaladevi assembled and demanded that Vimaladevi should be handed over to them immediately; that however, Vimaladevi told the Deputy Superintendent of Police that she was already married to the Petitioner and that she was willing to go only with the petitioner; that in the meantime, the petitioner was abused and intimidated by the crowd which included the Member of the Legislative Assembly, Usilampatti and his henchmen; that they virtually conducted a kattapanchayat in the station itself; that under pressure from them, the Deputy Superintendent of Police decided to separate the couple and sent the petitioner to the Sholavandan Police Station; that thereafter, the thali of Vimaladevi was forcibly removed in the police station and she was sent to the Samayanallur Police Station; that in the police station, the caste status of the petitioner was openly mentioned and he was abused with the caste name; that before sending Vimaladevi to Samayanallur, she was kept in the police station for the whole night and was allowed to be abused, assaulted and threatened by her parents and their henchmen in the police station itself; that this was witnessed by the office-bearers of the organization which helped the petitioner referred to above; that thereafter, Vimaladevi was produced before a Magistrate on 26-7-2014, when she allegedly made a statement that she wanted to go with her parents; that nevertheless she also appears to have stated that she was not kidnapped by any one; that even after their forceful separation, Vimaladevi was constantly in touch with him and She even informed him of the proposal of her parents to give her in marriage to one Sathish Kumar of the same village; that she would, however, manage to come to Vathalagundu along with her proposed bridegroom under the guise of going for an outing on 23.9.2014 and that at that time the petitioner could come to Vathalagundu and take her away from that place; that however the plan failed, as her relatives identified the petitioner leading to a brawl; that therefore all of them were taken to Vathalagundu Police Station; that in that police station, one woman Sub-Inspector by name Anandhi made an enquiry; that though the petitioner and Vimaladevi informed her about their marriage, the said Anandhi took a complaint from the proposed bridegroom Sathish Kumar and registered a CSR No.489 of 2014; that when the Woman Sub-Inspector attempted to send Vimaladevi along with Sathish Kumar, one Kasi Mayan, a taluk committee member of the CPI (M) came to the rescue of the petitioner and informed the police that they were married to each other and that she should be sent along with the petitioner; that instead of protecting the couple, the Sub-Inspector allowed Sathish Kumar and his men to attack them, when the couple attempted to escape in an auto rickshaw; that thereafter the woman Sub-Inspector took Vimaladevi to a Government Home at Oomachikulam in Madurai; that the petitioner along with the office-bearers of TNUEF and AIDWA went along with the police team, but they were denied permission to meet Vimaladevi, despite the fact that she was a major and was not involved in any crime; that therefore, he sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul with copies marked to Superintendent of Police, Madurai, District Collectors of Madurai and Dindigul Districts by registered post on 26.9.2014, but did not get any response; that therefore, he decided to file a writ petition before the Madurai bench and started making preparations; that in the meantime, he was informed on 2.10.2014 that his wife Vimaladevi had died of suspicious circumstances on the previous night and that her parents had cremated her body by pouring petrol over her body and lighting the same; and that the petitioner later came to know that it was the woman Sub-Inspector Anandhi, who took custody of Vimaladevi from the Government Home, handed over her to her parents. Therefore, the petitioner alleges that the death of Vimaladevi was nothing but an honour killing, as the girl had stepped out of the caste barrier and married a member of another caste and that too, a schedule caste. 9. The petitioner has also averred that on 2.10.2014, he sent a memorandum to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai and that upon coming to know about the death of Vimaladevi, the office-bearers of TNUEF and AIDWA demanded action against all those, who were responsible for the death of Vimaladevi. According to the petitioner, it was the police, who were responsible for the death of Vimaladevi. Every time when there was intervention by the members of those organizations to get the girl released from the custody of her parents and relatives, it was the police, which had acted at their behest and were actually responsible for the death of Vimaladevi. Therefore, it is in this background of facts that the petitioner has approached this court for the reliefs set out above. 10. Before proceeding further, it must be recorded that there is no dispute with reference to the age of Vimaladevi. The photocopy of the Higher Secondary Course Certificate produced before this court shows her date of birth as 3.1.1994. Even in the statement given by Vimaladevi before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti on 26.7.2014, she had stated that her age was 20 years. 11. The photocopy of the Higher Secondary Course Certificate produced before this court shows her date of birth as 3.1.1994. Even in the statement given by Vimaladevi before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti on 26.7.2014, she had stated that her age was 20 years. 11. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai has filed a counter affidavit denying all the averments of the petitioner and contending inter alia that one P.Veeranan submitted a complaint on 22-7-2014 to the Usilampatti Town Police Station alleging that his daughter aged 21 years had been kidnapped; that accordingly, a first information report was registered in Crime No.244 of 2014 under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code; that the case was taken up for investigation by the Inspector of Police, Chekkanurani Circle, who was then holding Additional Charge for the Usilampatti Circle; that after preliminary enquiry, the Investigating Officer uploaded the details of the kidnapped girl in the CCTNS website for circulation to all police stations throughout the state; that since the alleged abduction of the girl had led to tension in the area, another first information report was registered by the woman Sub-Inspector by name M.Rani on 25.7.2014 in Crime No.248 of 2014 under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code to prevent any breach of peace; that the Investigating Officer instructed one Anbalagan, Sub-Inspector of police to go to Pattambi in search of the kidnapped girl; that the team found them there and brought them on 25-7-2014 for an enquiry, as could be verified from the general diary kept at Pattambi Police Station; that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste and the deceased Vimaladevi belonged to the Piranmalai Kallar caste; that there was no proof that the petitioner had married the said Vimaladevi in a temple at Vridhachalam; that the Investigating Officer had taken steps to ensure proper safety and security of both the petitioner and Vimaladevi and he sent Vimaladevi to All Women Police Station, Samayanallur and the petitioner to Sholavandan Police Station; that the entries in the general diary kept in the Sholavandan Police Station will show that Vimaladevi was kept in their custody and subsequently produced before the Usilampatti Court; that after her deposition that she was not kidnapped by anyone, she was sent with her mother and the Vice-President of Polipatti Panchayat by name Madhivanan; that the police at Samayanallur did not permit anyone to interact with Vimaladevi on 25.7.2014; that on 26.7.2014, she was allowed to meet her grandmother and another woman relative; that Vimaladevi did not complain of any abuse, assault or threat before the Magistrate, when her statement was recorded; that the allegation that the local M.L.A. Kathiravan was present is incorrect, as at that time he was attending the Legislative Assembly, which is evidenced by a certificate to that effect; that as per the statement submitted before the learned Magistrate, Usilampatti and as per her own wish, she was sent along with her grandmother Amaravathi; that Vimaladevi was a major and an educated person and she never made any complaint against police; that one Sathish Kumar, S/o. Gurusamy of Boodhipuram village lodged a complaint with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vathlagundu Police Station on 23.9.2014 alleging that he got engaged to Vimaladevi and that he had purchased a mobile phone with a new number and had given it to her; that he used to have frequent conversations with her in that number and as per her wishes, he took her to Vathlagundu to purchase a Chudidhar; that when they were in Vathlagundu, she made a call from his mobile to someone else, while they were crossing M.V.Lodge; that at that time, the petitioner came there and both of them attempted to strangulate him; that on an alarm being raised by him, few persons standing nearby took him to the nearest police station, that on his complaint a CSR was registered in that police station; that at that time, one Kasi Mayan belonging to CPI(M) came to the station and represented to the Inspector, Vathlangudu that the girl and the boy are majors and as they were in love with each other, they had to be united; that upon enquiry, it was found that they were in love with each other, but their parents were opposing the affair and they had made arrangements to marry the girl to one Sathish Kumar; that since the telephone numbers of the parents of Vimaladevi were not available, they could not be informed immediately; that in the enquiry, Vimaladevi admitted to have fallen in love with the petitioner and against her wish, her parents were attempting to marry her to Sathish Kumar and that she brought Sathish Kumar to Vathlagundu under the guise of purchasing Deepavali dress, after passing on prior information to the petitioner; that when she tried to go with the petitioner, a scuffle broke out between the petitioner and Sathish Kumar; that at around 16.00 hours, the woman Sub-Inspector allowed them to go away in an auto rickshaw, but a quarrel between the petitioner and Vimaladevi on one side and their relatives on the other side started and on receiving the information, they were brought back to the police station; that upon further enquiry, Vimaladevi gave a consent letter to stay at the Government Home at Madurai for one week, so that she can take a final decision; that accordingly, Anandhi, a woman Sub-Inspector and two other policemen took her to the Government Vigilance Home for Women at V.O.C.Nagar, Thirumalpuram on 23.9.2014; that the father of Vimaladevi contacted the woman Sub-Inspector of Police, Vathlagundu on 26.9.2014 and requested permission to meet his daughter; that the Woman Sub-Inspector informed him that if they go with their family card and voter identity card to prove their identity, they can see their daughter; that on the same day he informed the Woman Sub-Inspector of Police that his daughter expressed willingness to come with them; that the same was also confirmed by the Warden of the Home; that therefore, on 26.9.2014, the woman Sub-Inspector of Police with two other police went to the home and enquired Vimaladevi about her willingness to go with her parents; that since she expressed a desire to go with her mother, necessary letter was given by the woman Sub-Inspector of Police to the Superintendent of the Home and Vimaladevi was handed over to her mother Thenammal by the Home; that subsequently, one Selvam, Village Administrative Officer of Boodhipuram Village gave a complaint at the Usilampatti Town Police Station about the death of Vimaladevi and cremation of the body; that immediately, a first information report in Crime No.308 of 2014 was registered and investigation was taken up by Subramaniam, Inspector of Police, Usilampatti; and that unless the cause of death is ascertained after a detailed investigation, the question as to whether it was a case of homicide or suicide and whether it was a case of honour killing cannot be decided. 12. The fact that the petitioner met the officer on 2.10.2014 is admitted in the counter affidavit. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that on the basis of the petition submitted, a Special Team was constituted to investigate the case. But, the request made by the Inspector of Police, Usilampatti to conduct an inquest by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti was turned down by the officer, as the body itself was not available. However, the other procedural formalities such as crime scene analysis, collection of fingerprint etc, were completed and an observation mahazar has been drawn up from the cremation ground and material objects have been seized. Based on the investigation, the offences have been altered to Sections 147, 149, 120 (B), 306 read with 176, 201 Indian Penal Code and a report has been sent to the court. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that the Investigation officer arrested 8 accused persons namely (i) Veeranan @ Chinnasamy, (ii) Thenammal, (iii) Murugan, (iv) Thangapandiammal, (v) Gurusamy, (vi) Virumandi, (vii) Pandi and (viii) Suresh and remanded them to judicial custody. 13. According to the respondents, no substantial evidence was found to establish that the death of Vimaladevi was due to homicide and that the materials so far available point it out to be only a case of suicide due to abetment. The officer has stated that being a superior officer, he had reviewed the case of death of Vimaladevi and issued a detailed supervisory note. The Investigation Officer had taken steps to record the statement of the petitioner and other witnesses under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code and it was scheduled to take place on 11.10.2014. But, in the meantime, this court had stayed further investigation. At present, the investigation is carried on by an officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Even the petition sent by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakottai on 30.9.2014 for an appropriate action. 14. The Superintendent of Police has stated further that the elopement of a man and a woman belonging to different castes results in tension between rival groups in rural areas and that the present case had also given rise to heightened tension warranting initiation of proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 15. 14. The Superintendent of Police has stated further that the elopement of a man and a woman belonging to different castes results in tension between rival groups in rural areas and that the present case had also given rise to heightened tension warranting initiation of proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 15. In the light of the rival pleadings, it has to be first ascertained as to whether the petitioner’s prayer for transferring the investigation to the 3rd respondent C.B.I. is legally justified? 16. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the local police as well as their higher officers does not inspire confidence and it was only due to their omissions and commissions, the death of Vimaladevi had occurred. The learned counsel further stated that even today, the Investigation Officer continues to maintain that it was a case of suicide and not homicide. If the officers under the 2nd respondent are allowed to proceed with the investigation, it will result in travesty of justice and suppression of truth. The learned counsel further submitted that the police, far from helping the couple to lead a peaceful married life, went out of the way to help the caste group of the deceased Vimaladevi and it is nothing but an honour killing. 17. In this context, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another, reported in 2006(5)SCC 475. Reliance was placed on the following passage found in the judgment, which was also extracted in the affidavit and it is as follows : “The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage, the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person, who undergoes such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl, who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone, who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law. We sometimes hear of `honour' killings of such persons, who undergo inter-caste or inter religious marriage of their own free will. There is nothing honourable in such killings and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism.” 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arumugam Servai vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011(6) SCC 405 for the proposition that officers who are responsible for not preventing honour killing must be severely dealt with. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism.” 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arumugam Servai vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011(6) SCC 405 for the proposition that officers who are responsible for not preventing honour killing must be severely dealt with. The following passage from the judgment was also found extracted in the affidavit and it is as follows: “We have in recent years heard of `Khap Panchayats' (known as katta panchayats in Tamil Nadu) which often decree or encourage honour killings or other atrocities in an institutionalized way on boys and girls of different castes and religion, who wish to get married or have been married, or interfere with the personal lives of people. We are of the opinion that this is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. As already stated in Lata Singh's case (supra), there is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.” 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the death of Vimaladevi was nothing but an honour killing by her parents and their caste group and the police were guilty of allowing the girl to be sent with her parents knowing fully well, the consequences of it. Finally even after the death of the girl, they are attempting to shield the offenders by projecting it to be a case of suicide. Under the said circumstances, the learned counsel pleaded that it is a fit case where the relief sought for by the petitioner should be granted by this court. 20. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, that a dubious stand is taken by the respondents. Under the said circumstances, the learned counsel pleaded that it is a fit case where the relief sought for by the petitioner should be granted by this court. 20. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, that a dubious stand is taken by the respondents. In Para 22 it is averred as follows : “It is submitted that the cause of death is under detailed investigation whether it is homicide or suicide and it cannot be assumed as honour killing.” In para 41, it is averred as follows : “It is submitted that the above submissions evince that the investigation of the case is being conducted very sincerely by an officer in the rank of Deputy Supdt. of Police and personally monitored by the Additional Superintendent of Police Thiru. Gopal Samy on a day-to-day basis.” 21. But in the original file relating to crime no. 308/14, Usilampatti Town Police Station, the affidavit filed by the new Investigation Officer (K.Kumaravelu, DY.S.P) before the court of JM1 Usilampatti seeking for the police custody of the two accused is available. There, he has made the following averment : (“Tamil”) 22. If the Investigation Officer had already come to such a definite conclusion that it was only a case of suicide and that if at all, some persons can be accused of a mere abetment to commit suicide, then certainly the case pleaded by the petitioner that it was a case of homicide due to honour killing stands repudiated. Hence the plea made by the Superintendent of Police that the cause of the death was yet to be ascertained, is a mere bogey created to hoodwink this court and hence cannot be accepted especially in the context of the affidavit filed by the I.O. on 8.10.2014 before the court of JM1, Usilampatti. 23. With reference to the Usilampatti police going to Pattambi police station (Kerala) and bringing the couple back, it is stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit as follows : “It is submitted that with reference to averment made in para 4, it is submitted that Usilampatty police did not promise the Pattambi Police that Vimaladevi and Dilipkumar would be sent back to Pattambi; rather Usilampatty Police had informed the Pattambi Police that the kidnapped girl would be produced before the Court. An attested copy of the extract of the entry made in the general diary and uploaded in the CCTNS website of Pattambi Police Station dated 25.07.2014 is enclosed in the typed set.” Since the G.D. entry made by the Pattambi Police was written in Malayalam, I got the crucial passage translated by a lawyer knowing Malayalam and the translated version reads as follows : “Accused Dilip Kumar, (Age 22, S/O Balachandran, Polipetti, Usilampatti -- Crime 244/2014 U/s 366IPC) and Vimala Devi, (D/O Veeranan, Chambar, Puthippuram Road, Usilampatti) who is missing in the case, were taken in custody from the house of Manikantan (Age 32, S/O Veerswamy, Thottingal Veedu, Keezhayur, Pattambi, Ph: 8157861898) by Usilampatti town police station sub inspector Anbazhagan. After taking custody and informing at the station, they were taken to Chennai to produce in the Madras high court.” 24. A reading of the above G.D entry kept by the Pattambi police clearly shows that the Usilampatti team had taken the couple purportedly in connection with a pending case in the Madras High Court and not for taking them to Usilampatti Police Station. Therefore the justification for bringing the petitioner and Vimaladevi to Usilampatti does not stand explained before this court. 25. Further it was stated in the counter affidavit that the team headed by SSI Anbalagan brought Petitioner and Vimaladevi to the Usilampatti Police Station at about 6.00 p.m. on 25.7.2014 and handed over to Sugumar in the All Women Police Station, Usilampatti. But it is not clear as to how an FIR was registered by the woman Sub-Inspector M.Rani at the Usilampatti Police Station on 25.7.2014 around 11.00 a.m. purporting to initiate proceedings under Sec 107 Cr.P.C to control the breach of law and order by two groups. In that complaint, the Sub-Inspector had mentioned the names of the younger brother of Vimaladevi, her mother Thenammal and three others as 'A' party. Likewise the names of five others including that of the father of the petitioner are shown as 'B' party. I do not know how the news of the arrival of the petitioner and Vimaladevi at the station on that day, reached both parties. Unless they have been sounded, it was not possible for two groups of five persons each to create law and order problem and that too in front of police station without there being any basis for the same. 26. Unless they have been sounded, it was not possible for two groups of five persons each to create law and order problem and that too in front of police station without there being any basis for the same. 26. In his petition dated 2.10.2014 given to the Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Police Station, the petitioner had stated that when he and Vimaladevi were brought to the Usilampatti police station, there was a mob of 200 persons who attempted to separate the couple and prevented the police from producing them before court. The Superintendent of Police far from explaining the vast disparity in the statements given by persons concerned, has sought to explain the same in paras 10 and 43 of the counter affidavit as follows : “10. it is humbly submitted that it is not true that Vimaladevi was abused, assaulted and threatened in front of the police where the police remained as mute spectators. The investigation officer sent Vimaladevi to AWPS, Samayanallur and Dilipkumar to Sholavandan P.S. respectively. The investigation officer has takne these steps to ensure proper safety and security of both the persons since there was caste related tension in their respective village because of the elopement.” “43. It is submitted that unfortunately elopement of a man and a woman belonging to different castes results in tension between rival caste groups in rural areas. In this instance also, the incident of Vimaladevi and Dilipkumar had given rise to heightened tension, warranting initiation of proceedings u/s 107 Cr.PC and deployment of police to avert clashes.” 27. If the above scenario was the perception of the district level police officers and their subordinates and especially in the context of the local police attempting to initiate proceedings under Sec 107 Cr.PC on the ground that there was law and order problem emerging, it is ununderstandable as to why the petitioner and Vimaladevi were sent to different police stations for over night custody instead of producing them before a judicial court. Initially the Usilampatti Police registered an FIR in Crime No. 244/14 dated 22.7.2014 under Sec 366 IPC. The said section reads as follows : “366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc. Initially the Usilampatti Police registered an FIR in Crime No. 244/14 dated 22.7.2014 under Sec 366 IPC. The said section reads as follows : “366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; 1[and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid].” 28. It is needless to state that as per Schedule 1 of the Cr.PC , an offence under Sec 366 is cognizable and non-bailable. After having gone to Pattambi Police station and after having brought the petitioner and Vimaladevi to Usilampatti and knowing fully well that trouble was brewing in the area, it is not clear as to why after having detained them initially at Usilampatti, the petitioner was taken to Sholavandan and Vimaladevi to Samayanallur by the Investigation Officer on the ground that caste related tension was developing in the respective villages. Even the initial enquiry would have revealed that both the petitioner and Vimaladevi were majors and the offence under Sec 366 could not have taken place. This is especially in the context of Vimaladevi having given a statement before the Sub-Inspector of Police., Usilampatti on the same evening. In that statement, she did not even say that she went along with the petitioner to Palakkad. On the other hand, she had only stated that because of the quarrel in their family, she went to her friend Kavitha’s house at Avaniapuram. In that statement, she did not even say that she went along with the petitioner to Palakkad. On the other hand, she had only stated that because of the quarrel in their family, she went to her friend Kavitha’s house at Avaniapuram. The local police which got the statement from Vimaladevi, knew fully well that this statement was not correct and that they themselves went to Pattambi to bring the petitioner and Vimaladevi accompanied by a police team headed by SSI Anbalagan. It was also curious that the girl was taken before the JM, Usilampatti on 26.7.2014 to record a statement. If an offence under section 366 had been made out, it is also not clear as to how the local police can let off the petitioner, without any order from the court, especially after having secured him. Even after knowing the caste tension in both villages, it is not clear as to how the girl was allowed to be sent with her grandmother to the very same village. 29. The conduct of the police at the Vathlagundu Police Station especially the woman Sub-Inspector Anandhi is still more curious. First she receives a complaint from one Sathish Kumar and conducts an enquiry. After intervention of Kasi Mayan of the local CPIM, she allows the petitioner and Vimaladevi to go in an auto rickshaw. But within 15 minutes she hears a wordy quarrel between the couple and the relatives near the bus stand and once again brings them back to the station and conducts further enquiry. In that enquiry, she obtains a consent letter from Vimaladevi to stay at the government Home at Madurai for one week and allegedly on the basis of the said letter admits her to the Government Vigilance Home for Women at Thirumalpuram. But her letter to the Superintendent of Government Home, which finds a place in the file relating to the petition-enquiry conducted by the said Sub-Inspector, reveals the following: (“Tamil”) Sd/- Anandhi 23.9.2014 30. However, before making a request to the Home authorities, she had obtained a statement from P.Chinnasami, the father of Vimaladevi which was also witnessed by his wife Thenammal. It was stated therein as follows: (“Tamil”) 31. The above statement recorded from the parents of Vimaladevi goes contrary to the sequence of events narrated by the woman Sub-Inspector Anandhi of the Vathlagundu Police Station. It was stated therein as follows: (“Tamil”) 31. The above statement recorded from the parents of Vimaladevi goes contrary to the sequence of events narrated by the woman Sub-Inspector Anandhi of the Vathlagundu Police Station. Apart from this, it clearly shows that Vimaladevi was determined to go with the petitioner. On the other hand, the statement obtained from Vimaladevi on the same day about her being sent to the Government Home reads as follows: (“Tamil”) 32. In the file produced, there were several letters allegedly written by deceased Vimaladevi in different context. Even though the said Vimaladevi was a trained secondary grade teacher and an undergraduate student in a college curiously none of the letters was written by her. If the parents of Vimaladevi on 23.9.2014 disowned her and left the place, it is not clear as to how the woman Sub-Inspector on the very next day received a phone call from the father of Vimaladevi seeking the permission to visit the Home and she also permitted them to visit the Home. Once again another letter was obtained from Vimaladevi on 26.9.2014 stating that after two days of stay in the Home, she expressed a desire to go with her mother. On the basis of the said letter, the Inspector had permitted the girl to go with her parents. As per the petitioner’s averment in para 10 of his affidavit, the very same incident took place as follows : “I submit that in the police station a woman Sub-Inspector by name Anandhi enquired us. Though we informed her about our marriage, she received a complaint from the said Sathish Kumar (CSR. 489/2014) and tried to send Vimala along with Sathish Kumar. Further she abused both myself and Vimala by making derogatory and casteist remarks over our marriage and even man handled her. Meanwhile I sought the help of CPI(M) and one Mr.Kasi Mayan, a taluk committee party member of CPI(M) came to the police station and represented to the Sub-Inspector that Vimala and Myself were already married and especially when the girl wanted to go with her husband, she should not coerce them to do the contra. Since her plan to send Vimala along with Sathish Kumar was objected to, she sent Vimala with me. But when we were proceeded in an auto, we were attacked by Vimala’s relatives, and this again brought to the notice of the woman Sub-Inspector. Since her plan to send Vimala along with Sathish Kumar was objected to, she sent Vimala with me. But when we were proceeded in an auto, we were attacked by Vimala’s relatives, and this again brought to the notice of the woman Sub-Inspector. Instead of taking action against the attackers and giving us protection, she tried to send Vimala along with her relatives. But Vimala categorically refused to go with her parents and stated she will even go to jail. The sub inspector then sent her to a government home at Oomachikulam at Madurai. I also went to the Home along with the office bearers of TNUEF and AIDWA and requested the warden to meet my wife Vimala but the same was refused even though Vimala was a major and she was not a convict.” 33. However, contrary to the above averments, the woman Sub-Inspector of Police Anandhi, in her statement recorded under Sec 161 Cr.PC given before the investigation officer had stated that with the consent of both parties she had sent the girl to the Government Home for Women. In that statement, she had also stated that after releasing the girl from the Home, she went to the village of Vimaladevi to handover her to her father. The local police officers fully knew that the marriage of Vimaladevi was fixed on 30.10.2014 at Boodhipuram as per the marriage invitation produced before them. Therefore there was every reason to believe that the local police both at Usilampatti and Vathlagundu had clearly laid a blue print to get the girl separated from the petitioner and to hand her over to her parents. 34. From the records, it is clear that the deceased Vimaladevi was very much found in the company of the petitioner from the night of 20.7.2014 to 26.7.2014 and she was available to the police from 23.9.2014 to 26.9.2014. It is rather unfortunate that the police officers under the 2nd respondent who were in the know of things did not abide by the directives issued by the Supreme Court (which was also sent to them by circulars) in the two cases referred to above and failed to protect two consenting adults in getting married crossing the caste boundary. It is rather unfortunate that the police officers under the 2nd respondent who were in the know of things did not abide by the directives issued by the Supreme Court (which was also sent to them by circulars) in the two cases referred to above and failed to protect two consenting adults in getting married crossing the caste boundary. On the other hand, they were determined to separate the girl from the petitioner and were showing anxiety to hand her over to her parents as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If Vimaladevi was a major and an educated person as averred in the affidavit, then the anxiety shown by the woman Sub-Inspector Anandhi of Vathlagundu Police Station even to accompany her to the village so as to hand her over to her father is clearly reprehensible. 35. In the light of the facts pleaded and disclosed from the files, it is clear at least prima facie that the death of Vimaladevi is a case of honour killing. But unfortunately, the investigation team had not brought this out deliberately. On the other hand, they have manipulated the records and have come out with different stories so as to save their own officers. The Supreme Court, in Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2011) 6 SCC 396 , cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had observed as follows : “Before parting with this case we would like to state that `honour' killings have become commonplace in many parts of the country, particularly in Haryana, western U.P., and Rajasthan. Often young couples who fall in love have to seek shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts. We have held in Lata Singh's case (supra) that there is nothing `honourable' in `honour' killings, and they are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted, persons with feudal minds. In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilized behaviour. All persons who are planning to perpetrate `honour' killings should know that the gallows await them.” 36. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilized behaviour. All persons who are planning to perpetrate `honour' killings should know that the gallows await them.” 36. Since the investigation is yet to be completed, I am also tempted to quote the following statement which became the opening passage in the Bhagwan Dass case cited supra. “This is yet another case of gruesome honour killing, this time by the accused-appellant of his own daughter.” 37. Hence I am of the opinion that the investigation relating to the death of Vimaladevi cannot be left in the hands of the officers under the 2nd respondent. Firstly it does not inspire confidence of the victims. Secondly, the investigation officer himself is proceeding on a predetermined chartered course namely that the death of Vimaladevi was one of suicide and not homicide. Further the police officer at Vathlagundu herself is shown as a witness though her complicity in the crime is yet to be determined. The circumstances under which an investigation of a crime can be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (the 3rd respondent herein) is set out by the Supreme Court in the case relating to Gudalure M.J. Cherian And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors reported in 1992 (1) SCC 397 . The relevant passage from the judgment is usefully extracted below : "It is not necessary for us to go into various facts and circumstances mentioned by the petitioners in the writ petition in support of their apprehensions that the investigation in the case by the police was not fair and the victims are not likely to get justice by the authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Four accused persons have been arrested in connection with the crime and the trial against them is likely to commence. The investigation having been completed by the police and charge-sheet submitted to the court, it is not for, ordinarily, to re-open the investigation specially by entrusting the same to a specialised agency like CBI. We are also conscious that of-late the demand for CBI-investigation even in police cases is on the increase. The investigation having been completed by the police and charge-sheet submitted to the court, it is not for, ordinarily, to re-open the investigation specially by entrusting the same to a specialised agency like CBI. We are also conscious that of-late the demand for CBI-investigation even in police cases is on the increase. Nevertheless - in a given situation, to do justice between the parties and to instill confidence in the public mind it may become necessary to ask the CBI to investigate a crime. It only shows the efficiency and the independence of the agency" 38. It must be stated that when the investigation by local police is not inspiring and when they themselves are liable to be shown as accused in the crime and when the State had not taken any steps to investigate the matter it will be appropriate for the High Court to order for an investigation by an outside agency i.e. the CBI. In order to request the CBI to conduct investigation it does not require the consent of the State and that question came to be considered by a constitution bench in its judgment in State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Commtt. For Protect, Democratic Rights reported in 2010(3) SCC 571 . In Para 69, it was observed as follows :- “In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.” 39. The same principle was once again reiterated in Advocates Association, Bangalore vs Union of India and others reported in 2013 (10) SCC 611 by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in these circumstances, the first primary question as to whether the investigation of crime no. The same principle was once again reiterated in Advocates Association, Bangalore vs Union of India and others reported in 2013 (10) SCC 611 by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in these circumstances, the first primary question as to whether the investigation of crime no. 308/14 on the file of the Usilampatti Town Police Station should be handed over to CBI (3rd respondent), has to be answered in the affirmative. 40. In so far as the question of police protection for the petitioner is concerned, it is seen that the officers themselves feel that there is an explosive situation in both villages on account of the petitioner’s love affair with deceased Vimaladevi. Hence, he must be given full protection by the State police until further orders of this court. 41. In so far as taking criminal and departmental action against the police officials is concerned, it must be stated that the conduct of the police in Usilampatti Town Police Station and Vathlagundu police station were not satisfactory and they did not handle the case with the sensitivity that it requires. Further the conduct of Anandhi, woman Sub-Inspector, Vathlagundu has to be probed. Similarly, the role of the Station House Officer of the Usilampatti Town Police at the relevant time also will have to be probed. Hence the 2nd respondent is directed to appoint an officer of the rank of an Inspector General of Police to conduct a preliminary investigation on the conduct of the officers in the circumstances that lead to the death of Vimaladevi and submit a report to this court within a period eight weeks and get further orders on the further course of action against such of those officers whose names have come to adverse notice. 42. The claim for compensation, on account of the sad death of Vimaladevi and the indifference shown by the officers contrary to the dictum of the Supreme Court atleast in three cases referred to above, is well founded. But, I am of the view that it can await the investigation by the CBI. 43. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the following effect:- (1) The Superintendent of Police, Madurai and the 2nd respondent will hand over all the records relating to crime no. But, I am of the view that it can await the investigation by the CBI. 43. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the following effect:- (1) The Superintendent of Police, Madurai and the 2nd respondent will hand over all the records relating to crime no. 308/14 on the file of Usilampatti Police Station as well as the materials collected by the present investigation officer namely the Dy.SP (PEW), Madurai forthwith to the 3rd respondent who will in turn nominate an officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police to continue the investigation and submit a final report to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. A further direction will follow to the 2nd respondent to direct all their officers to accord full cooperation in the smooth conduct of the investigation by the CBI. (2) The 2nd respondent is directed to appoint an officer of the rank of an Inspector General of Police to conduct a preliminary investigation on the conduct of the officers in the circumstances that lead to the death of Vimaladevi and submit a report to this court within a period eight weeks and get further orders on the further course of action against such of those officers whose names came to adverse notice. (3) The 2nd respondent is directed to accord police protection to the petitioner until the completion of the investigation and until further orders from this court. (4) The petitioner is at liberty to renew the claim for compensation on account of the death of Vimaladevi at the appropriate stage. (5) The 1st and 2nd respondents are hereby directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards costs to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.