ORDER : This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred seeking to direct the first respondent to further investigate the matter by entrusting the investigation in Cr. No. 508 of 2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, R3, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Chennai, to some other Investigating Officer. 2. At the outset, it is worth pointing out that this is the second application filed by the petitioner for the same relief, after the dismissal of the first application in Crl. O.P. No.8953 of 2015 on 11.08.2016. Instead of reproducing the facts, it would suffice if the relevant portion of the order dated 11.08.2016 in Crl. O.P. No.8953 of 2015 is extracted verbatim : “3. The petitioner's daughter Divya got married to one Vajravel on 07.06.2012 and they have one child through the wedlock. It is said that the said Vajravel is working as Police Constable attached to R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station. While so, on 11.05.2014, Divya died, in connection with which, on the complaint lodged by Mohan Doss, the petitioner herein and Divya's father, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.508/2014 on 11.05.2014 under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. and took up investigation of the case. 4. In the complaint given by the petitioner, he has clearly stated that his daughter and son-in-law were leading a happy married life and she came to her parental home for delivery, where, she frequently complained of excruciating stomach ache for which she was given treatment. On 11.05.2014, Vajravel returned from duty and found the house door locked from inside. Therefore, he forcibly entered the house and found his wife Divya hanging in the ceiling fan. After registration of the First Information Report, investigation was taken over by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Revenue Authorities were requested to conduct inquest over the body of Divya. 5. Now, Mohan Doss has filed the present petition for a direction to transfer the case in Crime No.508 of 2014 from the file of R3 Ashok Nagar Police Station to the CB-CID, on the ground that the investigation is not proceeding on the right lines. 6. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents/State and perused the case diary. 7. 6. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents/State and perused the case diary. 7. It is seen that in this case, the investigation was taken over by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, since death had happened within 7 years of marriage. The Additional Personal Assistant to the District Collector, who is the Executive Magistrate, was requested to conduct inquest. The Executive Magistrate conducted inquest and examined the petitioner and other family members of both Divya and Vajravel. In his report dated 27.05.2014, the Additional Personal Assistant to the District Collector has given a finding that Vajravel and Divya were happily married and that there was no dowry demand or cruelty or harassment by Vajravel. The postmortem report also shows that Divya appears to have died of Asphyxia due to hanging. During investigation, police recovered a suicide note left by Divya in which she has clearly stated that nobody is responsible for the extreme step she had taken. Even at the first instance, the petitioner has stated that Divya was suffering from excruciating stomach problem. The Assistant Commissioner of Police completed the investigation and filed “action dropped” report based on the materials collected by him. 8. On a perusal of the materials collected by the police, this Court does not find any serious infirmity warranting transfer of the case to the CB-CID for re-investigation. 3. Mr. Sankara Subbu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the deceased Divya, the petitioner's daughter, had left a suicide note implicating her husband Vajravel, the third respondent herein, and ignoring that, the investigation has been done in a partisan manner by the second respondent police in order to protect Vajravel, who is a Police Constable. He also contended that there are sufficient materials to show that the handwriting in the suicide note is not that of Divya's and the police had failed to collect her admitted writings from the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Saravanan, learned counsel for Vajravel refuted the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In order to satisfy the judicial conscience, this Court called for the case diary once again and plodded through it. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Saravanan, learned counsel for Vajravel refuted the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In order to satisfy the judicial conscience, this Court called for the case diary once again and plodded through it. It may be relevant to state here that on the complaint given by the petitioner, the FIR in Cr. No.508 of 2014 was registered under Section 174 (3) Cr.P.C. Even in the complaint given by the petitioner, he has stated that Divya and Vajravel were leading a happy married life. The post-mortem report clearly shows that Divya had died of Asphyxia due to hanging. The question is was it a dowry death or was she pushed to the extent of committing suicide by Vajravel. 6. Since the death was within 7 years from the date of marriage, the inquest in this case was not done by the police, but, by the Executive Magistrate-cum-Additional P.A. to the Collector, Chennai - 1, who, after examining the relatives of Divya, including the petitioner herein, has, in his report dated 27.05.2014, completely ruled out the possibility of death due to dowry harassment. 7. Now, coming to the suicide note that was left by Divya, this Court carefully perused the same. In the first sentence of the suicide itself, Divya has clearly stated that none is responsible for her death. She has further stated in her suicide note that she does not know how to live with her good husband and beautiful child; she is not lucky enough to live with her child; her funeral should be done at Oragadam; her son should perform her last rites; etc. Thus, there is not even a scintilla of material implicating Vajravel in the suicide note. The police have sent the suicide note with the admitted handwritings of Divya to the handwriting expert in the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory and have obtained a report dated 10.11.2014, wherein, it is stated that the writings in the suicide note agree cumulatively with the admitted writings of Divya. Thus, the expert opinion confirms that the suicide note was not planted by Vajravel, but, was left by Divya on her own volition. 8. Thus, the expert opinion confirms that the suicide note was not planted by Vajravel, but, was left by Divya on her own volition. 8. Taking all these factors into consideration and after examining several witnesses, the Investigating Officer has closed the case as “action dropped” on 18.02.2015. There is absolutely no room to suspect the investigation that has been conducted by the police in this case. 9. In paragraph no.4 of the petition, the petitioner has stated as follows : “4. The petitioner submits that the said matter in Crl.O.P. No.8953 of 2015 was closed on 11.08.2016. On the day there was boycott of Courts and the matter was not heard fully and the report of the Executive Magistrate was placed before the Court without furnishing the copy of the same to the petitioner and the matter was disposed of accepting the plea of the partisan investigation of R3 police....” 10. The aforesaid averment in the petition is a black lie inasmuch as Crl.O.P. No.8953 of 2015 was heard by this Court on 04.08.2016 and orders were reserved. This Court, after going through the records, directed listing of the matter on 11.08.2016 under the caption “for orders” and on that date, the order was pronounced. Thus, the case was not heard on 11.08.2016, as is the case of the petitioner, but, on 04.08.2016. Assuming for a moment that 11.08.2016 was a day of boycott of Courts, that cannot be a good reason to re-agitate the matter, especially in the light of the judgment in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another [ (2003) 2 SCC 45 ], wherein, the Supreme Court has declared boycott of Courts as illegal. For the aforesaid averment itself, this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. However, this Court refrains itself from imposing costs, because, the petitioner has already lost his daughter and this Court does not want to rub salt on his wound. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as being devoid of merits.