preferred a complaint before the Sooranad Police Station alleging offences under Secs.498A, 316, 323, 342 r/w 34 IPC. That later, the police have subsequently deleted sections 316, 323 and 342. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother initially and the petitioner filed a complaint against the 5th respondent, her relatives and doctors for offences under Secs. 312, 315, 120B, 142, 143, 149, 506(2)of the IPC r/w Secs. 3, 4, and 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Since there was no enquiry, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court and this Court vide Ext.P6 judgment directed the 3rd respondent herein to submit the final report within 3 months. Since there was no proper enquiry and non-compliance of the judgment and petitioner moved the contempt of courts case against the incumbent in the post of 3rd respondent herein and the contempt of courts case was closed on 22.7.2019 by granting 45 days time to complete the investigation. Thereafter, a statement (Ext.P8) was filed on 3.8.2019 stating that final report dated 3.8.2019 was submitted by referring the case. It is stated that no proper enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent and the documents produced as Exts.P11 to P15 would clearly substantiate the contention that the investigation conducted in the case on hand is only a mockery since the incumbent in the post of the 3rd respondent herein was furious as he was made the respondent in the Contempt of Courts case. This Court in a reported decision [2010 (1) KLT 399] has held that investigation can be transferred to another agency even after filing of charge sheet before court. In the case on hand, the contradictions evidenced in Exts. P11 and P15 necessitate an enquiry by the superior officer since the investigation is tainted and unfair.
