Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.12000 of 2025The writ petition is filed to call for the records of the 1st respondent in S.A.No.1316/SCIC/2022 dated 19.08.2024, to quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to issue instructions to the 2nd respondent, to file a final report in the matter after conducting proper enquiry with the persons concerned. 2. The petitioner states that while he was on a religious tour with his family to North India in May 2014, his driver, one Mahendran, gained illegal entry into his house by breaking open the locks and was caught red handed by the petitioner's private secretary. On a complaint by the petitioner's friend, J.Suresh, a case was registered in Cr.No.858/2014, under Sections 457 and 511 of IPC.3. According to the petitioner, during the course of investigation of the above crime, by the 3rd respondent, another offence in respect of theft of some jewels kept in a travel bag, involving the same driver came to light. The petitioner states that of the 4 items stolen, only one item viz., gold Thirugu Billai was recovered from the driver. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent during the enquiry failed to recover the remaining 3 items of 2 /14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12000 of 2025jewellery, and also failed to include appropriate sections under IPC for the said crime. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Chennai, (North) on 06.04.2015, for appropriate action against the respondents 2 and 3. Further, since no action was taken against the accused, the petitioner filed a petition in W.P.No.28527/2015 before this court. This Court in its order dated 10.09.2015, directed the Joint Commissioner of Police, Chennai (North) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2015, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, by letter RC.No.91/KaEAa/Vama Mugam/2016 dated 06.10.2016, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Chennai (North), appointed the second respondent, as an enquiry officer to investigate the case. The petitioner states that he was summoned for an enquiry through letter dated 19.10.2016. Though the petitioner attended the enquiry many times, there was no progress in the case. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a letter on 20.05.2021, to the PIO under the RTI Act, seeking information on the 3 queries raised by him on the status of the enquiry. The Public Information Officer, failed to furnish the information sought for by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner filed First Appeal on 27.07.2021, to the first appellate authority. Since the first appellate authority 3 /14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12000 of 2025gave irrelevant and vague replies, the petitioner filed second appeal to the first respondent on 19.01.2022, and followed it up with many reminders. The first respondent in the course of the enquiry in the second appeal, directed the 2nd respondent on 13.03.2022, to furnish the reply directly to the petitioner before 31.03.2022. The first respondent further directed the petitioner to submit a representation, if necessary replies were not received by him, from second respondent, before 11.04.2022. Since, the petitioner did not receive the reply from the second respondent, he sent a letter to the first respondent for necessary action. Thereafter, on 28.06.2024, after the lapse of 2 years the first respondent called the petitioner and the second respondent, for an enquiry on 09.07.2024. The first respondent, after enquiry passed an order on 19.08.2024, directing the 2nd respondent to furnish the enquiry report as sought by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent, submitted a reply stating that the then ACP retired on 30.09.2023, and also that the concerned enquiry files were damaged in the heavy rains and so he could not furnish the information sought for. Recording the 2nd respondent's reply, the 1st respondent closed the enquiry on 19.08.2024, without issuing further directions to the 2nd respondent in the second appeal, SA.No.1316/SCIC/2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has 4 /14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12000 of 2025filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. The third respondent filed a counter stating interalia, that on receipt of a complaint in Cr.No.858/2014 under Sections 457 and 511 of IPC, investigation was undertaken by the then Inspector of Police, Tr.S.Murugesan. The accused Mahendran was arrested on 21.05.2014 and remanded to judicial custody. The respondent stated that in the course of investigation, 8 witnesses were examined including the complainant and the house owner, namely Mr.J.Suresh, and statements were recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. According to the respondents, none of the witnesses deposed about any gold jewellery being stolen from the scene of occurrence and further as it was only an attempt to commit theft, no property was seized from the accused. On conclusion of the investigation, the then Inspector of police, filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotriyur which was taken on file in CC.No.41 of 2016. The respondent stated that the next hearing date was scheduled on 02.07.2025, for fresh summon in the said CC. The respondents stated that the petitioner also filed a case in Crl.OP.No.29371 of 2014, seeking registration of a case against his driver Mahendran and his brother-in-law, but the same was dismissed after 5 /14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12000 of 2025enquiry. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition in Crl.OP.No.32342 of 2014, seeking to alter the FIR in Cr.No.858/2014. The said petition was also dismissed on 12.12.2014. The respondents stated that after continuous failure in all legal battles, the petitioner submitted a petition under the RTI Act, on 06.04.2015, seeking certain information from the respondents, which was replied within the stipulated time. Not satisfied with the reply, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the State Commissioner. The Second Appeal was taken on file in SA.No.1316/SSCIC/2022, and thereafter the State Commission disposed off the petitioner's second appeal by the impugned order dated 19.08.2024. The respondents therefore submitted that the writ petition was filed on assumptions and presumptions and hence it deserved to be dismissed as merit less. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order deserved to be set aside as the first respondent failed to note that the respondents had failed to furnish the information sought for by the petitioner in his RTI application. Learned counsel further submitted that with respect to the second query under the RTI Act, vague information was provided stating that no jewellery was recovered. In respect of the 3rd query regarding 6 /14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12000 of 2025re-investigation ordered by this court in WP.No.28527/2015 dated 10.09.2015, the learned counsel submitted that the information furnished by the 2nd respondent, was not sufficient and therefore the impugned order deserved to be set aside.6. The respondents' counsel reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit.7. Heard both sides. Perused the materials placed on record. By consent of both sides counsels, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 8. The petitioner states that during the house-breaking incident on 18.05.2014, certain jewels were stolen by his driver, Mahendran, which was found out in the course of investigation and therefore the offence of theft ought to have been included in the FIR in Cr.No.858 of 2014. As the police officials did not include the offence of theft in the FIR in Cr.No.858/2014, despite recovering all items of jewellery, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.32342/2014; this Court vide order dated 12.12.2014, dismissed 7 /14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12000 of 2025the said Crl.O.P, by observing that, if another offence was found in the investigation, the investigating officer would file a final report including the said penal provision also. The petitioner also filed Crl.O.P.No.29371/2014, for a direction to the respondent to register a case on his complaint dated 14.10.2014, against his driver. Mahendran and his brother-in-law, based on the driver's confession that he had committed theft of few more articles from the petitioner's house. However, the said Crl.O.P.was dismissed on 03.11.2014.9. Later the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.28527 of 2015 for a Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to initiate action against the Inspector of Police, Natarajan, based on his representation dated 06.04.2015. The said writ petition was disposed on 10.09.2015, with a direction to the respondents therein, to dispose of the petitioner's representation within a time frame. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the RTI application on 20.05.2021, seeking certain information. The PIO on 06.07.2021, communicated his reply to the petitioner. 10. The 3 queries raised by the petitioner in his RTI petition read as 8 /14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12000 of 2025follows:1.,J bjhlh;ghd ,Wjp mwpf;if rk;ge;jg;gl;l ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;ljh> mg;gobadpy; vd;W jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;lJ>2.brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk; Crl.O.P.No.32342-2014 ehd; 12/11/2014d; go nkw;go Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if vz;/858-2014 bjhlh;ghf ,Wjp mwpf;if jhf;fy; bra;a[k;nghJ rk;ge;jg;gl;l Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l Xl;Leh; knfe;jpud; mtuJ Xdh; tPl;oy; Kd;dh; fsthoa eiffs; bjhlh;ghd Fw;wr;rk;gtk; tprhuizapd;nghJ bjhpate;jhy; mJbjhlh;ghd Fw;wg;gphptpida[k; nrh;j;jpl ntz;Lk; vd Mizaplg;gl;lJ/ (efy; ,izg;g[) Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;lthplkpUe;J jpUL nghd 4 vz;zk; eiffspy; xU jpUF gpy;iyia kPl;L fle;j 06/07/2014 md;W mg;nghija kzyp Fw;wg;gphpt[ Ma;th; jpU/eluhrd; kPl;L Xdhplk; xg;gilj;j jftiy Vw;fdnt fhty; cah; mjpfhhpfSf;F kDjhuh; bjhptpj;J g[fhh; bfhLj;Js;s epiyapy;. ,Wjp mwpf;ifapy; eiffs; fst[ Fwpj;J Fw;wg;gphpt[ jw;nghJ ,Wjp mwpf;ifapy; nrh;f;fg;gl;L cs;sjh> vd;fpw jftiy bjhptpf;ft[k;/3.nkw;go eiffs; fsthlg;gl;lJ bjhlh;ghf brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w ePjpg; nguhiz vz;/28527-2015 ehs; 10/09/2015d; go fhty;Jiw kW tprhuizf;F cj;jutpl;lij efy; ,izg;g[ mLj;J jpU/b$aRg;ukzpad;. mg;ngija khjtuk; fhty; cjtp Mizah; mth;fs; e/f/vz;/91-fh/,/M- t/k/-Kfhk; 2016 ehs; 19/10/2016 miHg;ghizg;go kJjhuhplk; bjhlh; tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;lhh;/ nkw;go tprhuizapd; jw;nghija epiy kw;Wk; ,Wjpepiy vd;d vd;w jftiya[k; mspf;f ntz;Lfpnwhk;/9 /14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12000 of 2025The queries raised by the petitioner and the corresponding reply are as follows:-nfs;tp,J bjhlh;ghf ,Wjp mwpf;if rk;ke;jg;gl;l ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;ljh mg;gobadpy; vd;W jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;lJ/jfty;vk;6 kzyp fhty; epiya Fw;w vz;.858/2014 tof;fpd; ,Wjp mwpf;if ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. 02.02.2016k; NjjpNfs;tpnrd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; Crl.O.P.No.32342/2014 ehs; 12.11.2014d; gb Nkw;gb Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if vz;.858/2014 njhlh;ghf ,Wjp mwpf;if jhf;fy; nra;Ak; NghJ rk;ge;jg;;gl;l Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l Xl;Ldh; kNfe;jpud; mtuJ Xdh; tPl;by; Kd;dh; fsthba eiffs; njhlh;ghd Fw;w rk;gtk; tprhuizapd; NghJ njhpa te;jhy; mJ njhlh;ghd Fw;wg;gphptpidAk; Nrh;j;jpl Ntz;Lk; vd Mizaplg;gl;lJ. (efy; ,izg;G) Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;lthplkpUe;J jpULNghd 4 vz;zk; eiffspy; xU jpUF gpy;iyia kPl;L fle;j 06.07.2014 md;W mg;Nghija kzyp Fw;wg;gphpT Ma;thsh; jpU.eluhrd; kPl;L Xdhplk; xg;gilj;j jftiy Vw;fdNt fhty; cah; mjpfhhpfSf;F kDjhuh; njhptpj;J Gfhh; nfhLj;J cs;s epiyapy; ,Wjp mwpf;ifapy; eiffs; fsT Fwpj;J Fw;wg;gphpT jw;NghJ ,Wjp mwpf;ifapy; Nrh;f;fg;gl;L cs;sjh> vd;fpw jftiy njhptpf;fTk;jfty;vjphpaplkpUe;J fsT nrhj;J ifg;gw;wg;gltpy;iy.nfs;tp (3)nkw;go eiffs; fsthlg;gl;lJ bjhlh;ghf brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w ePjpg;nguhiz vz;/28527-2015 ehs; 10/09/2015 d;go fhty; Jiw kW tprhuizf;F cj;jutpl;lij (efy; ,izg;g[) mLj;J jpU/b$aRg;gpukzpad;. mg;nghija khjtuk; fhty; cjtp Mizah; mth;fs; e/f/vz;/9-fh/,/M-t/k-Kfhk; 2016 ehs; 19/10/2016 miHg;ghizg;go kDjhuhplk; bjhlh; tprhuiz nkw;f;bfhz;lhh; nkw;g;go tprhuizapd; jw;nghjpa epiy kw;Wk; ,Wjp epiy vd;d vd;w jftiya[k; mspf;f ntz;Lfpnwd;/jfty;nkw;go tHf;fhdJ ePjpkd;w tprhuizapy; cs;sJ/10 /14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12000 of 202511. Not satisfied with the reply, the petitioner filed an appeal and thereafter the second appeal in S.A.No.1316/SCIC/2022, in which, the impugned order was passed. 12. There is no dispute as to the reply to the first query. The petitioner contends that the first respondent ought not to have closed the second appeal merely on the statement of the 2nd respondent, that the files were damaged in the rain. The petitioner contends that this Hon'ble Court in WP.No.28527/2015, ordered for fresh enquiry and pursuant thereto an enquiry was conducted and hence the status of the enquiry ought to have been informed to the petitioner. The petitioner also contends that the investigating officer, in the course of the investigation recovered an item of jewellery and restored the same to the petitioner and so he ought to have included the offence of theft in the final report, as per the direction of this court in Crl.OP.No.32342 of 2014.13. According to the respondents, there was no recovery of any jewellery. The respondents in their counter referred to the 161 statement of the witnessess including the petitioner and his owner and stated that none of 11 /14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12000 of 2025the witnessess deposed of any jewellery being stolen. The relevant portion of the 161 statement of the petitioner filed by the respondents is extracted below:ehDk; tPl;by; VjhtJ nghUl;fs; jpUL Ngha; cs;sjh vd;W Nrhjid nra;J ghh;j;jNghJ ve;j nghUSk; jpUL Nghftpy;iy vd;gij njhpe;J nfhz;Nld;. ,J rk;ge;jkhf cjtp Ma;thsh; mth;fs; vd;id tprhuiz nra;jNghJ ele;jtw;iw $wpNdd;. 14. Hence from the above statement of the petitioner himself, it is clear that no jewellery was stolen. Hence the reply of the respondents in this regard cannot be faulted.15. As regards the third query and the reply to the same, this court is of the view that the query itself is based on an errorneous conception of the order passed by this court in WP.No.28527/2015. In the said writ petition, there was no direction to conduct fresh enquiry, the direction was passed only for consideration of the petitioner's representation. The petitioner on mere assumptions and presumptions has sought for the status of the enquiry, when no such enquiry was ever ordered. Therefore, the respondents have 12 /14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12000 of 2025rightly replied that the case was pending before the court. 16. On the loss of files, it is seen that the 1st respondent had no reason to doubt the veracity of the PIO's statement and hence the 1st respondent cannot be faulted for accepting the same.17. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in the writ petition and hence it is dismissed. No costs. 24.06.2025Index: yes/noInternet:yes/noSpeaking/Non-speaking ordergv13 /14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12000 of 2025 N. MALA, J.gvTo1. State Chief Information Commissioner Nandanam, Chennai – 600 0352. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Police Madhavaram Range Chennai – 600 0503. The Inspector of Police M-6, Manali Police Station Manali, Chennai 600 068.4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.W.P.No.12000 of 202524.06.202514 /14