A fair investigation does not mean an investigation done at the whim and fancy of a particular person, a single judge at the Madras High Court bench here noted.
Justice K.K. Sasidharan made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by T. Udayasankar, the sub-inspector of Kottar police station. He also rapped the petitioner for making ‘wild allegations’ and ‘uncharitable remarks’ against the inspector of CB-CID, Nagercoil, the petitioner’s former superior.
Mr Udayasankar had filed the writ apprehending that the inspector of CB-CID, Nagercoil, would falsely implicate him and his brother, a lawyer, in the murder of one Manikandan due to ‘personal animosity’.
ADVERTISEMENT
According to Mr Udayasankar, in 2008, he worked as the head-constable under the inspector of CB-CID, Nagercoil, who is now the investigating officer of the case. The inspector had ‘personal animosity’ towards the petitioner and hence would implicate him in the murder, the petitioner claimed. Mr Udayasankar and his brother had a dispute with one Sadasivam, a close relative of Mr Manikandan, over the management of an educational institution in Kanyakumari district. When Mr Manikandan was murdered on July 7, 2010, Mr Sadasivam accused them of the murder. But the inspector of police in Kottar conducted an inquiry and concluded that the petitioner and his brother were not involved in the murder.
The brother of the deceased moved the court and got the investigation transferred to the CB-CID, Nagercoil, through an order dated September 3, 2010.
In his counter-affidavit, the inspector of CB-CID said he had nothing personal against the petitioner.
ADVERTISEMENT
The investigation had already been completed and a charge-sheet submitted before the Judicial Magistrate on April 2, 2013, he added.
Justice K.K. Sasidharan, in his judgement, said, “The petitioner has come up with uncharitable remarks against his former superior officer with a view to getting an order of transfer of investigation and to ensure that the investigation is conducted by an officer of his choice.”
There is ‘no concrete instance’ to show the reasons for the personal animosity alleged by the petitioner, the judge said and further noted that he had moved the court only a few days before the charge-sheet was filed.
“As long as the investigation is conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and with a view to collecting the materials in a free and fair manner, it is not open to the Court to interfere in such investigation”, the judge held, while dismissing the petition.