IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED;7.2.2008 CORAM; THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL Crl.O.P.No.29663 Of 2006 Mrs.S.Clara ..Petitioner vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Home Secretary St.George Fort Chennai 600 009 2.The Joint Director Central Bureau of Investigation Govt. of India South Zone Sasthri Bhavan Chennai 600 006 ..Respondents Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the second respondent to register and investigate the complaint of the petitioner dated 15.3.2005 in accordance with law. for petitioner : R.s.Mohan for respondent : Mr.A.Saravanan Govt.Advocate(Crl.side) (for R1) Mr.N.Chandrasekaran Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I.Cases (for R2) ........ ORDER
The petition is filed seeking a direction to the second respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case and investigate the matter. The petitioner is the mother of the victim who was allegedly murdered in Kuwait. It has been alleged in the complaint that the victim Hemalatha, daughter of the petitioner, was hale and healthy. She has virtually no health problem at the time of her death. The husband of the said Hemalatha and one Thomas launched a murderous attack on her on 11.5.2004 at 11.00 p.m., when she resisted the sexual assault perpetrated on her by the said Thomas. The victim who could not brook the sexual assault was pushed down to the ground by those two persons and as a result of which the victim sustained injury which resulted in her unconsciousness and thereafter her death after 17 days. It is also alleged that the accused prevented the petitioner from conducting post-mortem examination to ascertain the cause of death and they simply buried the deceased victim brought from Kuwait to Palayamkottai, Tamil Nadu.
2. The Court heard the submissions made on either side.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the petitioner gave a complaint dated 7.6.2004 alleging commission of murder of her daughter by the accused at Kuwait before the Palayamkottai police station. The said police station having enquired into the matter recommended for C.B.I., investigation as a part of investigation will have to be done at Kuwait. It is his further submission that the recommendation of the said police station was processed by the Government of Tamil Nadu and necessary G.O., also was passed entrusting the investigation to the C.B.I. He would contend that when a citizen of India has committed an offence in foreign country, the offence committed by him can be investigated and tried by Indian Courts. Hence, the registration of the case and the consequent investigation are warranted, he would submit.
4. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would contend that the death had taken place way back in the year 2004 not in India but in Kuwait. The Kuwait investigation team had not taken up the complaint of the petitioner to its logical end. No useful purpose would be served if this case of murder is registered after about three long years by the investigating agency located thousands of miles away from the place of occurrence.
5. Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would read that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he may be dealt with in respect of such an offence as if it had been committed at a place within India at which he may be found.
6. There is no dispute to the fact that the accused are citizens of India. It is also submitted that they have permanent residence within the State of Tamil Nadu. In fact a petition to restrain the husband of the victim was filed before this Court beforeever he took a flight to go over to Kuwait. But the said petition was dismissed by this Court as infructuous on account of the fact that he had already gone to foreign country before the said petition was taken for disposal. It is found that the husband of the victim had loitered in the State of Tamil Nadu before he proceeded to foreign country after the alleged offence was committed. Therefore, the police in the State of Tamil Nadu has every authority to register a crime which was allegedly committed in a foreign soil.
7. It is found that the complaint which was originally given by the petitioner was not registered by the Palayamkottai police. The said police had conducted only a preliminary investigation and recommended C.B.I., investigation based on the information it had collected.
8. The petitioner is not in a position to furnish any copy of the G.O., alleged to have been issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu entrusting the investigation in this matter to the C.B.I. No other concrete material is also available on record to show that a G.O., was passed by the Government entrusting the investigation to the C.B.I.
9. The complaint as such reflects commission of heinous crime. Just because the occurrence had taken about three years ago we cannot give a decent burial of a case of this magnitude without embarking upon necessary investigation. If the Tamil Nadu police feels that the investigation will have to be necessarily done by the C.B.I. on account of the commission of the offence in a foreign country, the Tamil Nadu police can very well recommend to the Government which can take a decision in this matter as to whether the matter can be entrusted to the C.B.I.
10. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to lodge a copy of the complaint already lodged with the Palayamkottai Police Station with the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Chennai who shall call for the entire records of the said complaint with the Palayamkottai Police Station and register a case and investigate the matter forming an efficient team for the purpose of investigation of this case. If the police team headed by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Chennai comes to the conclusion that the investigation requires the expertise and experience of the Central Bureau of Investigation, it can recommend to the Government of Tamil Nadu for the said purpose and thereupon the Government of Tamil Nadu shall take appropriate action on such recommendation.
11. The petition is ordered accordingly.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Home Secretary St.George Fort Chennai 600 009
2.The Joint Director Central Bureau of Investigation Govt. of India South Zone Sasthri Bhavan Chennai 600 006.