Madras High Court
G.Ramasubbu vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Police on 10 August, 2011
Author: R.Mala
Bench: R.Mala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10/08/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION(MD)No.5597 OF 2011 G.Ramasubbu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil Division, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil to record the statement of the petitioner as well as the others those who were all witnessed the burning incident took place on 18.04.2011. !For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Subbaraj ^For Respondents... Mr.K.V.Rajarajan G.A., (Crl. Side) for R2 :ORDER
This petition has been filed to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil to record the statement of the petitioner as well as the others those who were all witnessed the burning incident took place on 18.04.2011.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the son of the petitioner viz., R.Krishnamoorthy has completed his Engineering course and he has been working in Rajasthan and he came to his native place for holidays. During that time, he committed suicide raising his voice as to the Tamil people including the children in Srilanga, who were all murdered cruelly by the Srilanga President, Raja Bakshe and since he was helpless to them, he should be killed and let him to be died.
3.He would further submit that the respondent has registered a case in crime No.80 of 2011 for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C., concealing the real fact of the incident. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present application directing the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, to record the statement of the petitioner and those, who were witnesses the burning incident took place on 18.04.2011.
4.The 3rd respondent has filed a status report, wherein, it has been stated that on 18.04.2011 at 11.00 hours, he received a telephonic information from the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti and obtained a statement from the petitioner, since the injured was in unconscious condition. They came to know that the petitioner's son was looked dull and told his father/the petitioner that he was not willing to go back his job in Rajasthan due to heavy work and less salary. It has been further stated that on 18.04.2011 at about 05.00 hours, he set fire himself by pouring petrol on his body and died due to burn injuries. Hence, the respondent police has registered a case in crime No.80 of 2011 for the offence under section 174 Cr.P.C. based on the statement of Ramasubbu.
5.It has been further stated by the 3rd respondent that one Advocate viz., Subbarau, the relative of the deceased handed over one letter to M.D.M.K. Leader, Vaiko, which was said to be written by the deceased in favour of Srilangan Tamilians without any signature and after serving summon to Vaiko, he returned the letter to the complainant. The complainant sent the letter by post to the 3rd respondent. Hence, after adopting all the formalities, the said letter has been sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai through the Executive Magistrate, Sankarankovil for obtaining the opinion from the handwriting export. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application.
6.Considering the status report filed by the 3rd respondent, I am of the opinion that the factum of committing suicide by the petitioner's son is not disputed. The only dispute is that whether he has committed suicide for the issue of brutally killing of Tamilians by the President of Srilanka. The letter which is stated to have written by the deceased has been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai to obtain the opinion from the handwriting expert.
7.On perusal of the complaint would clearly show that the complaint has been given by the petitioner herein and hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the signature has been obtained from the petitioner herein in a blank paper and the respondent have filled up the same does not merit acceptance. In such circumstances, since the respondents have investigated the matter in a proper direction, the I do not find any merits in the application, since the examination of the petitioner and those who were witnessed the burning incident will no way help the investigation and the criminal original petition deserves to be dismissed.
8.Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to investigate the matter in a proper direction and decide the matter in accordance with law.
Arul To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil Division, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.