: Madras High Court bench today pulled up police for closing a probe relating to a mishap in which a police vehicle was involved without following procedure, set aside its closure report and directed CB-CID in Pudukottai district to probe it and file a report in the Judicial magistrate court concerned.
Justice S Vimala while allowing a revision petition filed by the wife of a deceased man Sathyaraj, said "No one should be judge in his own case".
Sathyaraj, who was driving a bike,had died on May 30 2013 after being hit by a police Jeep driven by a Sub Inspector.
Though a complaint was filed by his relative, stating that rash and negligent driving by the SI had resulted in the death, it was closed with a note that the complaint was contrary to the truth and was mistake of fact.
The final report stated that Sathyaraj had 'invited' the accident on himself as he was in an inebirated state and that the fact was medically valid.Though the complainant protested, the magistrate closed the case and rejected the protest petition also.
The Judge pulled up the magistrate for not following procedure on closure of investigation. The petitoner contended the Magistrate should have permitted the Protestant to pursue the complaint by adducing evidence.
The magistrate had failed to note that the other vehicle involved in the mishap belonged to the Police Department. Besides when the compensation petition had been filed, police had chosen to close the investigation as mistake of fact to circumvent from paying compensation, the petitioner said.
She said the SI wanted to save himself from disciplinary proceedings. There was no indication in the Post mortem report that Sathyaraj was drunk, police had not probed if her husband had a driving license and the magistrate did not follow procedure after the protest petition was filed and did not even look into the grievance of the protestant, she said.
Adding insult to injury,the Magistate had chosen to return the Protest petition.The Police driver did not take reasonable steps to secure medical attention for the deceased. The victim was entitled to a sum of Rs 50,000 as ex-gratia from the government. That amount also was not given. Without examining the defacto complainant the case had been closed and this was wrong, the petitoner said.
