Crl.OP(MD)No.23085 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23085 of 2025 Saranya ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 2.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, Thiruparangundram Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.281 of 2022) ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to transfer the investigation in Crime No.281 of 2022 from the second respondent to any other investigating agency. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ashok For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.23085 of 2025 ORDER Seeking to transfer the investigation in Crime No.281 of 2022 from the second respondent to any other investigating agency, this petition is filed. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that she had arrived at Madurai on 18.07.2022 to attend a relative’s marriage function. After attending the marriage, she and her husband went to the Thiruparangundram Temple along with their luggage, which contained gold ornaments worth about Rs. 17,50,000/-. As bags were not permitted inside the temple premises, the luggage was kept in a locker maintained by the temple administration. After visiting the temple, they retrieved their luggage from the locker and returned to their hometown. Upon reaching home, she was shocked to find that the gold ornaments were missing, following which she lodged a complaint. Based on which, the second respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.281 of 2022 on 22.07.2022. Despite the registration of Crime No.281 of 2022, there 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.23085 of 2025 is no progress in the investigation. Hence, the petitioner sought for transfer of investigation from the file of the second respondent to any other investigating agency. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, on instructions, submitted that the second respondent police had duly seized the CCTV footage from the temple and examined the same. Upon such examination, it was made clear that the jewelry went missing while it was kept in the locker room or within the temple premises. He further submitted that the petitioner had travelled to Kanchipuram and only thereafter, reached her home, and hence, it cannot be ascertained as to where she actually lost her jewelry. Therefore, the investigation was completed and the case was closed as “undetectable.” The same was informed to the petitioner, who duly endorsed it. Hence, he sought dismissal of this petition. 4.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.23085 of 2025 5.This Court is of the considered opinion that FIR cannot be closed as undetectable, which would show the inefficiency on the part of the investigating agency. 6.In view of the same, the second respondent is directed to reopen the petition. The 1st respondent is directed to monitor the investigation conducted by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is directed to apprise the progress of the investigation every weekend to the 1st respondent. 7.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. 16.12.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No vsg 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.23085 of 2025 To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruparangundram Police Station, Madurai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.23085 of 2025 L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. vsg CRL OP(MD)No.23085 of 2025 16.12.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis