Babulal N. Bafna vs State of Tamil Nadu

K. Govindarajan, J.—The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to entrust the investigation in Cr. No. 2051/96 on the file of G-1 Vepery Police Station (3rd respondent) to the Crime Branch C.I.D., Madras.

The petitioner''s daughter Mrs. Sangeetha was given in marriage to one Prakash Jain. The marriage was celebrated on 30.6.94 and after the marriage, they came to Madras and started to reside at F-1, 602, 6th Floor, Ranjit Apartments, 38 Jermiah Road, Vepery, Chennai-7. She gave birth to a child on 15.1.96 at Mumbai. On 3.11.96, the petitioner received a message from his relatives at Rajasthan that his daughter had fallen down from the 6th Floor of her apartment block at about 10:30 a.m. According to the petitioner, the message was sent by the father-in-law of his daughter. Immediately, his wife and himself along with other relatives rushed to Madras. By then, the body of his daughter had been sent to Government Hospital Mortuary. According to the petitioner, they were made to sign papers end the contents of which were not known to them. After performing the last rites, they proceeded to the Airport and left for Mumbai. According to the petitioner, he received some information which made him suspicious about the circumstances in the death of his daughter. So, he reached Madras and made certain enquires at Apollo Hospital. Thereafter, he took up the matter with the Police once again. It is also stated that the petitioner has given petitions to the higher authorities that there was lurking suspicion in the death of his daughter and that the Vepery Police are not effectively investigating the matter. On that basis, the present writ petition has been filed.

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vepery Police Station, the third respondent has filed a counter. In the counter, he has elaborately mentioned as to how they have investigated the matter. It is also stated dial after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, on 19.6.97 and the case is pending trial in C.C. No. 4393/97. It is specifically stated by the investigating officer that the investigation has been done in a fair and impartial manner.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though in the final report it is stated that the accused appears to have committed an offence punishable under S. 498-A and 304-B of the IPC, the statements that have been recorded by the police proceed on the basis that the death of the deceased was due to accident. On that basis, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that since the investigating officer has not properly made an enquiry and investigated the matter, the entire case has been projected as if the fall of the deceased was an accidental one. The learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that the sisters of the accused were present at the time of the occurrence, but they were not examined and the properties were not recovered. The Police officials, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case should have investigated to explore the possibility of murder. Such an attempt was not made by the investigating officer. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the husband of the deceased also should prove alibi and no enquiry was made on that aspect. On that basis, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that since the investigation was not properly done, by the present investigating officer, the prayer sought for has to be ordered. I am not able to accept such submission.

The learned Public Prosecutor referring to S. 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, has submitted that if the Magistrate is not satisfied with the investigation, he can order further investigation under S. 153(3) of the Cr.P.C. In this connection, he relied on the decision in H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-Cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh Vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh),

I have perused the case diary produced before the Court which clearly shows that the investigating officer has thoroughly investigated the matter. An enquiry had also been made with the cook and the two sisters of the first accused.

The learned Public Prosecutor has also produced the report filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB CID., Metro Wing, Chennai-28. The matter was even investigated by the CB CID., and they had also filed the report. They have also found that the investigation that has been done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police is found to be on correct line. Even the representation given by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai-8, which is annexed in the typed set, is only to direct the Assistant commissioner of Police to seize the gold ornaments, silver articles, furniture and vehicles and the cash from the accused. The petitioner has already filed Crl.O.P. No. 13137/97 on 24.9.97 with a prayer to direct the Commissioner of Police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Respondents 2 and 3 herein) to investigate further into the matter and to seize the properties given to his daughter and the same is pending. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing, for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have not recovered the properties also. From the case diary I am able to see that the petitioner has got back 40 sovereigns of jewels which were given to his daughter at the time of marriage, when he attended the last rites of his deceased daughter. So, it cannot be said that the investigating officer has not investigated the matter on this aspect. Moreover, since the deceased died leaving behind a child, the petitioner is not entitled to get back the said properties.

The only complaint that has been made is that the respondents had omitted to include some important accused in the charge sheet. Though it is stated that vital witnesses have not been examined, no details have been given regarding the same. From the case diary I am able to see that the third respondent had examined all the persons who are said to be connected with the said occurrence. So, the question of directing the first respondent to entrust the investigation in Cr. No. 2051/96 on the file of the G-1 Vepery Police Station, me third respondent herein, with the crime Branch CID., to enable them to further investigate into the matter will not arise.

In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. Hence the same is dismissed. No costs.