(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of Cr.P.C. to transfer the investigation in Crime No.260 of 2025 from the file of the second respondent to the first respondent and the same to be investigated directly by him or any other Officer other than the second respondent and recover the remaining stolen properties.)
1. The petitioner/defacto complainant in Crime No.260 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 331(3) and 305(a) of BNS filed this petition seeking transfer of investigation from the file of second respondent to the file of first respondent and further to recover the remaining stolen properties.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a 70 years old senior citizen, who along with his wife residing at Thanthai Periyar Street, Cholavaram Nagar, Chrompet. They frequently travel to Bangalore to stay with their only daughter and come back to Chennai to maintain their residence. Lastly they visited the Chrompet residence on 19.06.2026 and thereafter went to Bangalore on 22.06.2025. When they came back to Chennai on 02.11.2025, they were shocked to see gates and doors broke open, the entire house was ransacked and all the valuables, household articles, gold jewels, silver articles and cash found missing. Immediately, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 02.11.2025 and since he was in a state of shock the petitioner could not give full details of stolen articles. Later on scrutiny, the petitioner found other articles stolen and hence, on 03.11.2025 the petitioner gave further details of the articles. Initially C.S.R. number assigned and later case registered in Crime No.260 of 2025 on 04.11.2025. Several additional items found missing were also informed which was not responded properly by the respondent and hence, for matter of record the petitioner sent it by registered post on 12.11.2025. In this case, two accused arrested on 10.11.2025 and the third accused was arrested on 17.02.2026. The accused confessed and admitted the theft of valuables, gold ornaments, silver articles, silver pooja items, sarees, valuable clothing, household articles and to whom they sold the articles, how they converted other items, how they visited the house for the second time to remove all the household articles including washing machine and other valuables. The accused also confessed about their involvement in various other cases of similar nature. On their confessions, it appears that they are professional in committing theft and robbery, but the recovery shown is only a small portion of the articles and a major portion of the articles though admitted but not recovered which caused aspersion whether recovered and not shown in the case for obvious reason, hence the petitioner sent a representation to the first respondent on 25.11.2025 requesting supervision and monitoring of investigation but thereafter to, no action taken. Hence the present petition filed.
3. On receipt of the Status report filed by the respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a perusal of the status report filed on the last hearing date, it is seen that out of five accused, only three accused have so far been secured and further, even though 17 ½ sovereigns of gold theft has been committed, only so far 4 gms of gold has been recovered. Further, the photographs, filed along with the petition, confirmed that the entire house was ransacked and from the jewels to the tap, theft has been committed and it cannot be done with limited persons and it cannot be taken away physically. The accused would have engaged a vehicle and taken away all these articles. These factors have not been considered. There is nothing to show that the investigation has been proceeded with in this direction. Though the fingerprint of one accused is said to have been confirmed, and what steps has been taken with regard to the other accused, there is no reference in the status report.
4. In support of his contention, the petitioner produced the details of the articles found missing and the photographs shown as to how the house was ransacked and what are the valuables taken away. Despite giving all particulars and details, the involvement of the other accused and the total recovery of the articles are doubtful. Therefore, left with no other option the present petition filed.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) filed a Status report and submitted that the case of the prosecution is that on 02.11.2025, at about 15:00 hours, the defacto complainant namely Thiru C.Manavalan, a retired Central Government servant (Ministry of Commerce), residing at No. 8/11, Thanthai Periyar Street, Chromepet, Chennai-44, appeared before the Station and lodged a complaint. The said complaint was received and CSR.No.1021/2025 was issued. After preliminary verification, a case was registered on 04.11.2025 at about 13:00 hours. The complainant stated that he has been residing in the above address along with his wife, Suganya, a retired employee of a Bank, since the year 2021, since their only daughter resides in Bangalore, they frequently visit her and stay there to assist her family. They usually return to their residence at Chrompet once in two or three months for cleaning purposes and stay for few days or about a week. It is further stated that the complainant last visited the house on 19.06.2025 and left on 22.06.2025 at about 04:30 hours. Thereafter, on 02.11.2025 at about 07:45 hours, when he returned to his house, he found that both the ground floor and first floor doors were found open and the articles inside the house were scattered and he found several valuables stolen. The list of stolen properties includes: one Baba Perumal hundial (cash box), gold ornaments such as one 4-sovereign chain and one 2-sovereign chain, two pairs of gold bangles weighing about 2 sovereigns, a karugamani gold chain (two strands) weighing about 1½ sovereigns, a pearl chain with dollar (two strands) weighing about 1½ sovereigns, a coral chain (two strands) weighing about 12 sovereigns, silver articles including one large plate, one medium-sized lotus plate, two small plates weighing about 12 kilograms, one large and one medium panchapatra with uthirani weighing about 700 grams, one large incense holder, one medium camphor holder, two large kuthuvilakku lamps, two medium kuthuvilakku lamps weighing about 500 grams, one large and one medium Kamatchi lamp weighing about 700 grams; and one gold ring (letter design) weighing about 1½ sovereigns.
6. It is submitted that based on the above, a case was registered in T2, Chrompet Police Station, in Crime No.260 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 331(3), 305(a) BNS against the accused persons on 04.11.2025 at about 13.00 hours by Tr.N.Kaliyamurthy, Sub Inspector of Police and submitted the same before Tmt.Sasikala, the then Inspector of Police for investigation. After taking up the investigation, the then Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and drew the rough sketch in presence of witnesses and examined the defacto complainant and other witnesses and recorded their statements. It is further submitted that, on various dates (i.e.) 03.11.2025 & 12.11.2025, the defacto complainant furnished additional details in the form of addendum sheets, providing details of the gold jewels alleged to be missing not mentioned in the original complaint to the respondent police through registered post, which are as follows:
| 1 | Saibaba Perumal Undiyal cash Rs.2.50 lakhs approx. |
| 2 | Italin blood red coral skands a pair – 2 lakhs |
| 3 | Hyderabad Original Pearls – 2 strands – Rs.60,000/- |
| 4 | Molten Silver recovered from old silk sarees – around 1 kg approx. |
| 5 | Perumal Silver Photo |
| 6 | Gold Coin – 1 Sovereign |
| 7 | Gold Coin – 2 gram -1, 1 gram-1 |
| 8 | Silver Coins – 5 |
| 9 | Lakshmi Vikragam |
| 10 | Vinayagar Vikragam |
| 11 | Silver Kunguma Simizh – 2 |
| 12 | Gold earrings – 1 set |
| 13 | Gold emerald ring |
| 14 | Silver Oval shape plate |
| 15 | Sarees – 26 |
| 16 | Electronic goods |
| 17 | Cooking equipments |
| 1 | Gold ring-1 weighing 3.400 grams |
| 2 | Gold ring-1 weighing 1.500 grams |
| 3 | Silver plate-2 Nos. |
| 4 | Silver bar – 406 grams |
| 5 | Silver coin – 2 weighing 25 grams |
| 6 | Cash Rs.40,000/- |
| 7 | Kamatchiamman vilaku silver – 4 each weighing 89 grams, 64 grams, 70 grams & 124 grams respectively |
| Total | Gold – ½ Sovereign and 900 ml Silver – 1 kg Cash – Rs.40,000/- |
| Property Loss | |
| Total missing gold ornaments | 14 Sovereigns |
| Total missing silver articles | 3 kgs 400 grams |
| Property Recovered | |
| Recovery of gold ornaments | 4 grams 900 milli |
| Recovery of silver articles | 2 kgs |
| Cash | Rs.40,000/- |
10. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the complaint was lodged on 02.11.2025, thereafter C.S.R.No.1021 of 2025 assigned and later FIR was registered on 04.11.2025. The petitioner lodged a complaint giving all details on 02.11.2025, further gave additional details of missing articles on 03.11.2025 and further with a detailed list of articles found missing on 12.11.2025. It is natural that a person, finds his house door broken and the entire house ransacked and articles stolen will be in a state of shock and it will take some time to come to reality and after proper scrutiny will be in a position to find out the details of missing and stolen articles but the respondent police seems to have recorded only the missing items which was given on 02.11.2025 for their convenience and thereafter not recorded the details of stolen articles given later. It is seen that on 10.11.2025 Siva and his brother Ranjith Kumar arrested and from their confession, certain of the articles seized. Though they have been given details about all the articles, only a portion of articles recovered. From the confession of A1, it is seen that he had been involved in cases in Thoraipakkam, Adhiyamankottai, Dharmapuri, Madhavaram, Ramapuram, Ambattur, Korattur, Kumbakonam, Nachiyarkoil, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvidaimarudhur, Vellore and other places. In this case, the recovery shown is only a small portion.
11. This Court had an occasion to peruse Case Diary. On perusal, it is seen that the accused had given wealth of information, but the second respondent not conducted the investigation as required. Further, the arrest of A1 and A2 stated to be on 10.11.2025 but the remand report is dated 09.11.2025 and signed by one Sasikala, Inspector of Police and obviously it is an error but it cannot be brushed aside lightly. Further, the statement of witnesses Gunasekaran and Suresh is given on 10.11.2025 but it ought to be on 12.11.2025. These things apparently goes to the benefit of the accused to come out of the case. The 161 statement of the petitioner/defacto complainant recorded on 10.11.2025 to identify the accused and articles seized so far but after the arrest of A3, there is no further statement from the defacto complainant. In this case, the Finger print Expert collected a chance fingerprint from the scene of occurrence which confirms the involvement of A1. The confession statement of A1 confirms that he along with A2 and A3. Thus the active role placed by each of the accused corroborated by recovery. Further the call details of mobile Nos.9003036232 and 9789089295 though sought but thereafter it was left as it is. The other witnesses so far examined are the witnesses in whose presence observation mahazar and rough sketch prepared and witnesses for arrest of A1 to A-3. The seizure mahazar is also only for a part of the article seized. The manner in which the investigation so far proceeded is not satisfactory. There are contradictory materials which will only enure to the benefit of the accused. The accused are professionals who have been wandering as rag pickers identifying the houses not only in Chennai but in various places throughout the State. Hence a detailed and composite investigation is required to coordinate with the Investigating Officers of the other case and further, these persons have been committing the offence for decades, well connected with others in committing the offence and there is also a chain of persons who are regularly receiving the articles knowing it to be stolen. This chain of offenders, receivers and the properties purchased by them all have to be investigated in detail and unless this chain is broken and all the culprits and offenders are brought to book, such type of offences would continue to re-occur often causing menace to the public and to the Police. Further, from the confession it is seen that theft committed in the petitioner’s house not once but on several days, they visit the house and staying inside the house, removing the stolen articles using vehicles and with the help of others. Further they have converted the stolen articles in cash and different form with the aid and connivance of others. Hence, detailed investigation is required to collect CCTV footage available in the scene of occurrence, enquire the neighbours and others who frequent the place.
12. Thus from the above, it is clear that the investigation so far conducted is partial and no strenuous efforts taken. In view of the above, a detailed investigation is required. Hence, this Court transfer the investigation in Crime No.260 of 2025 from the file of the second respondent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chrompet, who with dedicated Officers to conduct a deep and detailed investigation to recover the other articles and also to arrest other accused involved in this case without further delay and further to probe the act and modus of the accused who are committing similar offence for decades and living a comfortable life and benefitting from the crimes committed. If required, the Assistant Commissioner can also take custody or summon the accused A1 to A3 to collect further details and to recover all articles. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Tambaram shall monitor the investigation and to ensure that investigation is conducted properly without any latches, properties to be recovered and charge sheet in this case to be filed without delay. The petitioner/defacto complainant to be informed about the progress of investigation periodically once in two months.
13. With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.