Madras High Court
Thangavel vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 March, 2012
Author: N. Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar, P.Devadass
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09/03/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS Writ Petition No.13856 of 2011 Thangavel . . Petitioner vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottaimedu, Kamudhi, Ramanathapuram. 5. The Station House Officer, Mandalamanickam Police Station, Kamudhi, Ramanathapuram. 6. Tahsildar, Kamudhi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 7. The Central Bureau of Investigation, rep.by its Joint Director, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai - 600 006. 8. N. Arumugan . . Respondents Prayer This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus, (a) Directing the respondents 2 and 6 to immediately lay an alternative road to our village from Kamudhi Thiruchuli main road through the adjacent path near Mandalamanickam Police Station towards south as it is the long pending demand of dalits as one of their fundamental rights. (b) Directing the 7th respondent to investigate first information report filed in Crime No.32 of 2011 against the innocent dalit members under sections 147, 153(A), 506(i) of IPC and 3 of TNPPDL Act as it is motivated to harass dalits, (c) Directing the 1st and 4th respondents to hand over the case registered in Crime No.33 of 2011 on the file of the Mandalamanickam Police, Kamudhi to the 7th respondent and directing the 7th respondent to appoint a competent officer to take up the same and investigate the case in accordance with law under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. (d) Directing the 8th respondent to pay a fine amount as fixed by this Court for his mischievous and malicious act of making a false complaint in Crime No.32 of 2011 on the file of the Mandalamanickam Police Station to the High Court Legal Services Authority of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. !For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Rathinam ^For Respondents 1 to 6 ... Mr.K Chellapandian, Addl.Advocate General asst.by Mr.M.Alagudevan, Special Govt. Pleader For 7th Respondent ... Mr.Rozario Sundarraj For 8th Respondent ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan :ORDER
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
This writ petition is filed by father of the deceased Palanikumar, who was murdered on 9.9.2011.
2. According to the petitioner, the deceased Palanikumar is one of the resident of Pallapacheri, where about 600 dalit families are residing. In the said village, other caste Hindus are also residing. The dalit people from M.Pallapacheri village have to cross the Mandalamanickam main street to reach their village as the said street is the only street available. It is alleged that Mandalamanickam main street is populated mainly with Maravar community people and there is friction between two communities. According to the petitioner, number of times Dalits have been humiliated and the said community people approached the second and third respondents to make an alternate pathway to their village and no action being taken, the Pallapacheri village people boycotted the local body election held recently.
3. On 9.9.2011 petitioner's son Palanikumar was murdered by some persons, allegedly belonging to Maravar community while he was returning home after watching a drama, which was performed in Muthuramalingapuram Puthur village. Petitioner preferred a complaint before the Police mentioning names of several persons within half an hour and the Police have arrested five persons and investigation is in progress. On 10.9.2011 the Revenue Officials handed over a sum of Rs.75,000/- by demand draft. Again on 13.9.2011 a demand draft for Rs.1.00 lakh was handed over by the same revenue officials. The said amounts were deposited in the State Bank of India Thiruchuliur Branch. According to the petitioner, on 9.9.2011 at 8.00 p.m. the Deputy Superintendent of Police viz., Srinivasa Perumal came to the village and warned about the great conspiracy hatched against the dalit members of the village by some anti social elements. In the affidavit it is also stated that some anti social elements had made wall writings degrading Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar with an intention to cause damage and trouble to dalits and he had erased the wall writing with the help of the police force. He allegedly cautioned the members of the Dalit community not to pass through the area of the dominant community. The said DSP was transferred within three months allegedly at the influence of persons in the Government.
4. On 9.9.2011 at 9.00 p.m. one Arumugam lodged a complaint against five named persons and 15 others as if they had written abusive words against their leader Sri Muthuramalinga Thever on the walls of ration shop at 6.30 pm and 5th respondent police registered a case under sections 147, 153(A), 506(i) IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.32 of 2011. In the said complaint the complainant had not mentioned the name of petitioner's son viz., Palanikumar. It is alleged in the affidavit that it was the design and hand work of a particular section of Maravar community persons, who intended to create caste clash between two communities. It is further alleged that it is not at all possible for the members of the dalit community to enter into the streets of Mandalamanickam and to write provocative statements against their leader and therefore the said writing was made by the dominant community persons with an intention of causing serious troubles to the Dalits. Even though the said complaint was registered in Cr.No.32 of 2011 on 9.9.2011, no person was arrested till date and the complaint has to be closed. It is also stated in the affidavit that crime No.33 of 2011 registered due to the murder of Palanikumar may be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation. With the above said averments, petitioner has prayed for the above directions.
5. Mr.P.Rathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of arguments submitted that he is not pressing the prayer regarding
(a) and (d) and the writ petition may be ordered with regard to the remaining two prayers viz., directing the 7th respondent to investigate the FIR filed in Cr.No.32 of 2011 and directing respondents 1 to 4 to hand over the case registered in Cr.No.33 of 2011 on the file of Mandalamanickam Police Station, Kamudhi to the 7th respondent with further direction to the 7th respondent to appoint a competent officer to take up the same and investigate the case. Necessary endorsement is also made by the learned counsel in the case record on 7.2.2012.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamudhi, Ramanathapuram District filed counter affidavit contending that on 9.9.2011 some unknown persons have scribed the number '9' before and after the name of 'Muthuramalinga Thevar' with the words 'J.P.John Pandian Vazhga' and at 21.00 hours the Village President of Mandalamanickam Thevar Community reported to the police regarding the offensive writing on the wall and Crime No.32 of 2011 was registered and being investigated. The case was initially investigated by the Inspector of Police, Kamudhi and subsequently the investigation was taken up by the DSP, Kamudhi. Even though five Dalit persons of Pallapachery village were named in the FIR, no arrest has been made for want of credible evidence and the case is still under investigation. The said offending wall writings provocated the Thevar Community people and the DSP held peace committee meeting, inviting both community people on 9.9.2011 at 0045 hours. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Thangavel and Palani, son of Muniyandi of M.Pallapachery, while returning home after witnessing a drama at a nearby Muthuramalingapuram Pudur village temple festival, members of the rival group waylaided them and attacked Palanikumar with billhook and inflicted severe head injuries to avenge the offending wall writing against Muthuramalinga Thevar. The said Palani escaped unhurt and informed the family of Palanikumar, who was unconscious due to injuries, who was rushed to Kamudhi Government Hospital at 01.10 hours and he was declared brought dead.
7. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that on 10.9.2011 at 3.00 hours on the complaint of Thangavel, the father of the deceased Palanikumar, who is the writ petitioner, Cr.No.33 of 2011 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC read with section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act, 1985 by the Inspector of Police Kamudhi Circle. The DSP, Kamudhi Sub-Division took up the investigation, who visited the scene of crime, prepared observation mahazar, drew rough sketch and seized blood stained earth under seizure mahazar, attested by the witnesses. Further, he visited Kamudhi hospital, held inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body to the Medical Officer for post mortem. On 10.9.2011 the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kamudhi conducted post mortem. The investigation pointed the needle of suspicion towards the accused Arumugam, son of Nallamuthu Thevar and others belonging to Thevar community. On 10.9.2011 at 14.00 hours at Puthuruthi bus stop A-3 Arumugam, A-4 Abuthiran, A-5 Manikandan, A-6 Pachamal and A-7 Karuppayee were arrested and subjected to intensive questioning. A-3 to A-7 were remanded to custody. A-1 Mookuran and A-2 Govinda Manikandan are absconding and efforts are being taken by the special party to arrest the absconding accused. The investigation is on the right course, which is not influenced by any person at any stage. Regarding Cr.No.32 of 2011, the case was initially investigated by the Inspector of Kamudhi, which was subsequently taken by DSP, Kamudhi. No arrest has been made for want of credible evidence. The DSP visited the place i.e., Mandalamanickam and Pallapachery villages on 9.9.2011 night to defuse the tense situation. Regarding sanction of laying of new road, amount is already sanctioned by the District Collector and roads are being laid. The case in crime No.32 of 2011 is still under investigation and the same cannot be closed at this stage. The case in Cr.No.33 of 2011 being investigated, there is no necessity to entrust the above complaints to CBI.
8. The 7th Respondent representing CBI filed a counter affidavit stating that in W.P.(MD)No.24596 of 2011, etc., dated 23.12.2011 this Court ordered transfer of investigation to CBI regarding firing incident dated 11.9.2011 and Cr.No.33 of 2011 regarding the murder of Palanikumar was not ordered to be transferred. Some of the accused persons were arrested and DSP is investigating Cr.No.33 of 2011 and after the investigation is over charge sheet would be filed. Therefore transfer of investigation to CBI is not required, which will hurt the morality, self-respect of the local police. It is further stated that during pendency of batch of writ petitions, the request was made to transfer all cases belonging to Paramakudi incident and a direction was issued only to transfer the case relating to the incident which took place on 11.9.2011. Even though direction was issued to post this writ petition along with batch of cases, petitioner had not taken any steps to post this writ petition along with batch of writ petitions. CBI is not having sufficient manpower, infraustructural facilities to deal with more number of cases and therefore the 7th respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Mr.P.Rathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that Cr.No.32 of 2011 registered against dalit community people is liable to be closed and Cr.No.33 of 2011 of Mandalamanickam Police Station be transferred to 7th respondent as a member of dalit community viz., Palanikumar was killed by caste hindus. For the firing incident happened on 11.9.2011, this Court has already ordered transfer of investigation and the 7th respondent is investigating the said matter and it is better to hand over investigation to CBI in respect of Cr.No.33 of 2011 also. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged wall writing would not have been made by any member of the dalit community as the area is predominantly inhabited by the dominant community and some miscreants from the dominant community might have made the wall writing to create communal problem on the date of paying homage to the memorial of Immanuel Sekaran. The learned counsel also submitted that 7th respondent has to necessarily investigate the background of firing incident happened on 11.9.2011 and therefore it is just and appropriate to transfer investigation of Cr.No.33 of 2011 to the 7th respondent.
10. The learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand submitted that earnest efforts are being taken to investigate Cr.No.33 of 2011, which was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the SC&ST Act, 1989 and five persons viz., A-3 to A-7 were arrested and remanded to custody. All efforts are being taken to arrest A-1 and A-2 and a special party has been formed and swift action will be taken to complete the investigation and file charge sheet. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that there is no allegation made by the petitioner against the local police expressing lack of faith in the investigation and none of the Police personnel are involved in the said incident happened on 10.9.2011. The transfer of investigation of the firing incident happened on 11.9.2011 ordered by this Court was on the basis of the allegation made against the local police regarding police firing. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the case registered in Cr.No.32 of 2011 is also under investigation and due to want of credible evidence, no one is arrested as on date and the said case will also be investigated and depending upon the result, final report will be filed within a short period.
11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI supported the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General and submitted that the petitioner cannot argue for change of investigation and the said issue was considered by the Supreme Court in 2008 (2) TNLR 223 (SC) (Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala). The learned counsel also submitted that even though the High Court and the Honourable Supreme Court are entitled to order transfer of investigation to CBI, the Supreme Court has cautioned the High Courts to use the power exceptionally and only if extraordinary situation arises. In this case, no extraordinary situation is neither pleaded nor established by the petitioner to order transfer of investigation in Cr.No.33 of 2011 and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. We have considered the rival submissions made by the respective counsels.
13. From the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is evident that the petitioner is the father of the deceased Palanikumar, who was killed on 9.9.2011 for which Cr.No.33 of 2011 is registered by the Inspector of Police, Kamudhi Circle and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamudhi Sub-Division took up the investigation. The case was registered at 3.00 a.m. on 10.9.2011. The Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, drew rough sketch of the scene, seized sample of blood stained earth under seizure mahazar, attested by witnesses. He also visited Kamudhi Government Hospital, held inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body to the Medical Officer for post mortem examination. On 10.9.2011 post mortem examination was conducted. The investigation pointed the needle of suspicion towards the accused viz., Arumugam, Son of Nallamuthu Thevar, Mandalamanickam village and others. At about 14.00 hours on the same day at Thuthuruthi bus stop, A-3 Arumugam, A-4 Abuthiran, A-5 Manikandan, A-6 Pachamal and A-7 Karuppayee were arrested and they were remanded to custody. From the counter affidavit filed it is seen that A-1 Mookuran and A-2 Govinda Manikandan are absconding and special party is formed to arrest the absconding accused. From the above statement contained in the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamudhi Sub-Division, Ramanathapuram District, it is crystal clear that investigation in Cr.No.33 of 2011 commenced at the right time with all seriousness. There is no allegation that the investigation was not conducted properly. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition proceeded on the basis of apprehension. It is assured in the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that the remaining accused would be apprehended and final report will be filed in Cr.No.33 of 2011.
14. The allegation made against the Police in not preventing the incident happened on 9/10.9.2011 causing the death of Palanikumar was already raised before this Court in W.P.No.21974 of 2011 and the said allegations were gone into and a finding was given in the common order dated 23.12.2011. The Division Bench, answered the said issue in paragraphs 10 to 13, which reads thus, "10. .......................... The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, the 7th respondent in the writ petition, stated in his counter affidavit that on 09.09.2011 certain unknown persons scribbled the Door No.9 before and after the name of Muthuramalinga Thevar and also written the words "JP Vazhga" which provoked Thevar Community people and in this connection, a case in Mandalamanickam Police Station was registered in Crime No.32/2011 under Section 153(A) and 506(ii) IPC and under Section 3 of PPDL Act and the Deputy Superintendent of Police rushed to the spot, posted pickets and held peace meeting in between two communities. Thereafter, the unfortunate incident took place on 00.45 hours at the night of 09/10.09.2011 resulting in the murder of Dalit youth namely Palanikumar of M.Pachery village while he was returning home after witnessing a drama at nearby Muthuramalingapuram Puthur village. It is stated by the 7th respondent in his counter that prompt action was taken and a case was registered in Crime No.33/2011 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC r/w.3(ii)(v) of SC/ST Act. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that on 10.09.2011 itself, one accused Arumugam and four others belonging to Thevar Community were arrested. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner himself has categorically stated in his affidavit as hereunder:
"In the early hours of 10 September, 2011, a dalit boy was murdered by caste Hindus and four persons belonging to Mandalamanickam village were arrested by the police on 10 September 2011 itself."
It is further stated in the another part of the affidavit to the effect that unusually armed police officials in large numbers were deployed in Paramakudi and Riot control van was also there on the eve of Immanuel Sekaran memorial day to be observed on 11.09.2011.
11. The above said admitted facts makes it crystal clear that police officials not only taken preventive and precautionary measures, but also taken swift action by registering a case in respect of the murder of the Dalit youth Palanikumar and also arrested the accused persons immediately. It is also pertinent to note that even in respect of the unfortunate incident of riot taken place on 11.09.2011 from 11.00 a.m to 05.00 p.m, resulting in the opening of fire by police officials and causing the death of six persons and injuries to several persons including police officials, the police officials have taken preventive and precautionary measures as stated above, apart from deploying sufficient number of police force to maintain peace and pubic order.
12. In view of the aforesaid factors, we are of the considered view that the respondents 4 to 11 have taken all preventive and precautionary measures to prevent the incident and as well as taken swift and prompt action by apprehending the culprits and as such, they are not liable to be suspended as prayed for by the petitioner.
13. Accordingly, we have come to the irresistible conclusion to dismiss the above said writ petition namely W.P.(MD)No.21974/2011 as devoid of merits." The learned counsel for the petitioner, who was also one among the counsels appeared in the batch of cases, during the course of arguments in this case has not raised any allegation against the police, obviously in the light of the findings given by the Division Bench judgment dated 23.12.2011.
15. In the absence of any allegation against the Investigating Agency, whether a person/complainant can pray for transfer of investigation to other agency viz., CBI, was considered by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court in very many decisions.
(a) In 2006 (2) CTC 285 (Government of Tamil Nadu v. Muthulakshmi), the Division Bench of this Court, relying on the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, held that unless the materials placed before this Court disclose a prima facie case calling for investigation by CBI or any other similar agency, the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely on the basis of some allegations made by the party. The accused or complainant have no say as to who should investigate the alleged criminal offence.
(b) In 2002 (2) CTC 610 (Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services v. Sahngoo Ram Arya) (SC), to what extent the power of the High Court in directing an enquiry and investigation by CBI can be used, was considered. In paragraphs 5 to 7 it is held thus, "5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by CBI. This is a requirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause1. This Court in the said judgment at paragraph 174 of the Report has held thus:
(SCC p. 750, para 174) "174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate 'any other offence' is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been committed or a person's involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of 'LIFE' and 'LIBERTY' guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of 'LIFE' has been explained in a manner which has infused 'LIFE' into the letters of Article 21."
6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded by the police or CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living as a law-abiding citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct an inquiry by CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that the High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that there is a prima facie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded on the basis of "ifs" and "buts" and thought it appropriate that the inquiry should be made by CBI. With respect, we think that this is not what is required by the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Common Cause1.
7. Just to point out that there is no prima facie finding by the High Court, while directing an inquiry by the impugned order, we would like to extract the following few sentences:
At p. 8 of the impugned judgment, it is stated: "It is also alleged that the petitioner is being harassed owing to the reason that he was not amenable to the illegal demands made by the Minister concerned." The High Court further observed: "We however, forbear from excoriating the Minister on the basis of what has been said in the said news magazine at this stage." Proceeding further, the Court observed: "If the allegations in the writ petitions are correct, the rights of the respondents must be vindicated and the party at whose instance such orders have been issued in bad faith, his continuance in the office is not in public interest." At p. 9 of the judgment, the learned Judges observed: "If the allegations made in these and various other writ petitions are found to have any ring of truth, no sane person can claim that the affairs of the State are being run in accord with the Constitution." From the above, we see that the High Court has merely quoted certain allegations made against the Minister. It has not taken into consideration the reply given by the Minister. While directing an inquiry by CBI, the High Court, as stated in the judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause1 must record a prima facie finding as to the truth of such allegations with reference to the reply filed. In the instant case, we have noticed that the High Court has merely proceeded on the basis of the averments made in the petitions without taking into consideration the reply filed and without expressing its prima facie opinion in regard to these allegations. This having been not done, we find it necessary that the judgment impugned should be set aside and the matters be remanded to the High Court to consider the pleadings of the parties and decide whether the material on record is sufficient to direct the inquiry by CBI. While doing so, it will take into consideration not only the allegations made in the writ petitions but also the reply given by the Minister. After such an exercise if the Court still thinks that the allegations require a further investigation by CBI then it may do so after recording a prima facie finding which, of course, will be for the limited purpose of directing an inquiry."
(c) In (2010) 2 SCC 200 : (2010) 2 SCC (Crl) 1006 (Rubabbuddin Sheikh v.
State of Gujarat) the high police officials having been allegedly involved in the crime, the Supreme Court directed to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI, after giving a finding that the investigation in the said case was not conducted in proper direction.
(d) In 2010 (2) CTC 84 (State of West Bengal v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights) (SC), it is held that only in exceptional cases investigation can be transferred from the local police to the CBI and the said power should be exercised with great care and caution sparingly and not as a matter of routine.
(e) In (2011) 5 SCC 79 (Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat) it is held that if there is improper investigation by the State Police and high police officials are involved, direction for investigation by an independent and specialised agency like CBI can be ordered.
16. From the above decisions it is evident that unless it is established in a given case that the local police is not conducting investigation in a proper manner, investigation cannot be transferred merely on the request made by the complainant.
17. The next prayer is for directing the 7th respondent to investigate the FIR filed in Cr.No.32 of 2011. As per the counter affidavit filed, as on date there is no credible evidence and the investigation is in progress.
(i) In the decision reported in (2003) 6 SCC 195 (Union of India v. Prakash P.Hinduja.) it is held that the manner and method of conducting investigation has been left entirely to the police authorities as per Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. As the investigation under the Code takes several stages and aspects ultimately resulting in formation of the opinion by the police and such formation of opinion was the final step in the investigation, the same could only be taken by the police and by no other authority.
(ii) In the decision reported in (2003) 2 SCC 649 (M.C.Abraham v. State of Maharashtra) it is held that judicial interference with the discretion of the investigating authority should be left to the discretion of the authority, who is investigating and court shall not give any direction.
(iii) The said decision is reiterated in the decision reported in (2009) 10 SCC 488 (D.Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K.Mohan Krishnamachari). In paragraph 31 of the said judgment it is held that High Court cannot give direction to investigate the case from a particular angle and it is within the exclusive domain of the police to conduct investigation of crime. The said power is exercised by the Police as a statutory power coupled with duty.
(iv) In (2010) 12 SCC 254 (Babubhai v. State of Gujarat) it is held that unless an extraordinary case of gross abuse of power is made out by those in charge of the investigation, the Court should be quite loathe to interfere with the investigation, the field of activity reserved for the police and the executive.
18. Thus, the prayer sought for in this writ petition seeking direction to the 7th respondent to investigate the FIR filed in Crime Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 cannot be ordered. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the argument that the case registered in crime No.32 of 2011 against the dalit community people may be ordered to be closed is also unsustainable. However, to meet the ends of justice, we are of the view that Cr.Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 having been registered on 9.9.2011, a direction can be issued to the State Police to expedite investigation and file a final reports expeditiously. Accordingly, the State police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 and file final reports before the concerned Court, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
vr To
1. The Secretary, Home Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottaimedu, Kamudhi, Ramanathapuram.
5. The Station House Officer, Mandalamanickam Police Station, Kamudhi, Ramanathapuram.
6. The Tahsildar, Kamudhi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
7. The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai - 600 006.