Saluka Beevi vs State and Others

G. Rajasuria, J.—This petition has been filed to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to withdraw the case in Cr. No. 53 of 2010 pending on the

file of the fifth Respondent and entrust the same to the fourth Respondent for fair investigation and to file the final report within a time frame fixed

by this Court.

Heard both sides.

A re''sume'' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this petition would run thus:

The police registered a case in Cr. No. 53 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307 and 109 I.P.C, based on the complaint

lodged by the mother of the deceased as at that time, the deceased was in an unconscious state at the hospital and subsequently, the deceased

died.

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, instead of altering the penal provision of Section 307 I.P.C into one u/s 302 I.P.C, straight

away, the police altered into one u/s 304(A) I.P.C without any basis, projecting as though it was a case of road accident.

Challenging and impugning the act of the police, this petition has been filed praying for ordering change of investigation.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner inviting the attention of this Court to the contents of the F.I.R lodged by the Petitioner, would develop his

argument that before the occurrence, the Petitioner received a cell phone call from her son to the effect that he was being chased by three persons

namely Muthu Mohamed, Mohmed Ayyaduraui, V.A.O. Subbiah and subsequently, when she made searches, she could not trace her son,

whereupon alone, she lodged the complaint with the police, who have not taken any appropriate steps and accordingly, he prays for transfer of

investigation.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the police is properly conducting investigation treating it as an accident

case; that the Petitioner and the deceased have been arrayed as accused in one other case in Cr. No. 30 of 2009 on the ground that they

murdered the wife of the deceased and that due to that alone, the Petitioner has now filed this application pressing for treating the present case as a

murder case.

My learned Predecessor earlier passed an order dated 12.08.2010 calling for the alteration report filed by the Investigating Agency.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would criticize the alteration report by pointing out that no valid reason has been set out in it altering the

penal Sections 341, 307 and 109 I.P.C into Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C and still thereafter, into one u/s 304(A) I.P.C.

Be that as it may, now one fact is clear that between the persons arrayed as accused in this case and the defacto complainant, previously there

was misunderstanding and it is quite obvious and axiomatic. Thorough investigation is also required, more specifically, in view of the averments in

the F.I.R that before the occurrence, the deceased himself contacted his mother, the Petitioner herein over cell phone and informed that his life was

in danger.

Hence, in these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the investigation could be transferred from the local police to the Crime

Branch and accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, concerned shall take over the case and entrust the same to the police

officer under his control to investigate the case as per law. Further, the Petitioner is also at liberty to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of

Police concerned and air her grievance also whereupon the Deputy Superintendent of Police shall consider the same in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.