Rithanya Dowry Death Case: Madras High Court Refuses To Transfer Probe, Asks Superintendent Of Police To Monitor

Justice Satish Kumar disposed of the petition filed by Annadhurai, Rithanya's father, seeking to transfer the investigation to an independent investigating officer from the State Crime Investigation Department (CB-CID) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired judge.

Noting that a substantial progress had already been made in the investigation, the court was not inclined to order an independent probe in the case. However, since allegations had been raised regarding lapses in the investigation, the court directed the Superintendent to monitor the probe.

Rithanya, who got married to Kavin Kumar around three months ago, had allegedly complained to her parents that her husband and his family had been harassing her mentally and physically over dowry and other issues.

Following her death, and based on the voice recordings sent by her to her father before her death, the Cheyur police registered a case under Section 194(3) [Suicide by a woman within 7 years of marriage] BNSS. Following this, Rithanya's husband, Kavin, and his father Eswaramoorthy were arrested for offences under Section 85 [Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty] and Section 108 [Abetment of Suicide] of the BNS.

Alleging that the investigation was not being conducted properly, Annadhurai submitted that the police had failed to incorporate offences pertaining to sexual violence, harassment to women under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment to Women Act and other relevant laws.

Annadhurai added that crucial evidence, such as data from Kavin's phone had been ignored by the police. He submitted that the deliberate stalling, along with the selective handling of evidence suggested an attempt to shield Kavin and his family due to their political influence.

The state denied the allegations and submitted that the investigation was carried out in an impartial manner. It was submitted that the audio recordings from Kavin and Rithanya's phones had been sent for forensic examination, and their results were awaited. He also submitted that relevant provisions would be added at the time of filing the chargesheet before the Magistrate.

Noting that the investigation was progressing substantially and transferring the investigation would not serve any purpose, the court was not inclined to transfer it but instead directed the Superintendent to monitor the same.

It may be noted that in August this year, the court granted bail to Rithanya's husband Kavin, mother-in-law Chitra Devi, and father-in-law Annadhurai.

Case Title: Annadhurai Ramasamy v. The Chief Secretary

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 300

Case No: WP Crl 611 of 2025