E.V.Vasavan v. Dhanapalan & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUR AT MADRASDated:- 16.04.2009Coram:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHICriminal Original Petition No.2071 of 2009E.V.Vasavan... Petitionervs.1. Dhanapalan2. The Deputy Superintendentof Police,Kovilpalayam Police Station,Coimbatore.... RespondentPetition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure todirect the 2nd respondent herein to conduct proper investigation inrespect of Crime No.576 of 2008 and take suitable actionexpeditiously against the accused/first respondent and recover andrestore Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioner.For Petitioner : Mr.VMG.RamakannanFor Respondent-2: Mr.A.Saravanan,Government Advocate.O R D E R The petitioner/defacto complainant was approached by oneSathiaraj, a land broker, with an offer for sale of a valuableproperty in Mettupalayam, Coimbatore, and the petitioner, who had aproposal to purchase land at Coimbatore, expressed his desire and, asper the understanding, on 17.12.2008, proceeded to Coimbatore in hiscar after drawing a cash of Rs.25,00,000/- from his Bank Accountoperated with State Bank of India, Ambattur, Chennai, to meet theland owner as well as Broker Sathyaraj for payment of the advance. AtKovilpalayam Bus Stand, the petitioner met the Broker and while hewas talking to him, the Inspector of Police attached to KovilpalayamPolice Station ie., main accused/first respondent herein, came https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ towards them and forcibly snatched the car key and took away the carwherein the cash of Rs.25 lakhs was kept, asking them to come to thepolice station in Taxi. At the police Station, R-1 threatened thepetitioner to sign in blank papers else a case would be registered asif he carried unaccounted money. He further threatened that if hedemands back the money, he would see to it that a false case isfoisted for handling of counterfeit notes and black money. Thepersuasive pleadings of the petitioner turned to deaf ears and oncoming to know that the broker and the Inspector of Police alreadyconspired to rob the money brought by the petitioner, on the next dayie., on 18.12.2008, the occurrence was reported to the Superintendentof Police attached to Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Directorate(DVAC). The Superintendent, DVAC, conducted a probe and thetelephonic conversation recorded brought to light the involvement ofthe Inspector of Police. Under such circumstances, theSuperintendent of Police, DVAC, informed the D.I.G., Coimbatore, ofthe crime committed by the first respondent, whereupon, the DIGdirected the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, to proceedagainst the Inspector of Police. Accordingly, the DeputyCommissioner of Police inquired the main accused and during thesearch conducted, Rs.4 lakhs came to be recovered from him. Onphysical search, Rs.99,000/- was found concealed in his undergarment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the presentInvestigating Officer is none else than the superior officer underwhom the accused Inspector worked. Though the case has been taken onfile on 18.12.2008, two other accused involved in the case are notyet arrested and the balance money also not recovered. Further, themoney which has been recovered from the main accused has not beendeposited with court. The main accused came out on bail within 10days; thereafter, a petition to cancel the bail has been filed,whereupon, he was re-arrested and, pending investigation,subsequently, he was enlarged on bail. Since the accused worked asan Inspector of Police, still he wields influence; otherwise, thebalance money could have been recovered by this time and the co-accused apprehended. If the investigation is allowed to continue withthe present Investigating Officer, undoubtedly, the process would notproceed in the right direction and therefore, necessary direction maybe issued in the interests of justice.3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that theMagistrate-in-charge of the court concerned refused to accept thedeposit and insisted that such deposit should be made only with thejurisdiction Magistrate and since no Judicial Officer is posted inthat place, the prosecution could not deposit the money; search isbeing conducted to secure the other accused as well as to recover the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ balance money of Rs.20 lakhs; and that several witnesses wereexamined, materials collected and the investigation is proceeding ina proper perspective.4. I have carefully considered the submissions made on eitherside and meticulously perused the materials available on record.Prima facie, there are wealth of materials to substantiate thatan Inspector of Police, entrusted with the task of maintaining lawand order, under the guise of conducting investigation, indulged in aheinous crime of robbery while in duty. After being satisfied aboutthe actual involvement of the main accused, on being reported by theSP attached to DVAC, the D.I.G. swung into action and of course,deputed the present Investigating Officer to proceed with theinvestigation and enquiry. Though this Court, noticing the sense ofalacrity and commitment with which the DIG acted, records itsappreciation for him; it is heartening to note that after entrustingthe task as early as on 18.12.2008 with the Investigating Officer,who, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wasthe superior officer of the main accused, the process in effect seemsto have been lulled, for, the co-accused are still at large and thebalance money not yet recovered. Sensing the potentiality of theoffence said to have been committed by a police officer which wouldin a way affect the reputation of the police Department, in allprobability, the Investigating Officer should have acted with morevigor and spirit and unfortunately, the pace at which theinvestigation moved so far is not satisfactory and unusuallysluggish. The offence registered against R-1 is under Section 392 IPCand had investigation been done effectively, other serious offencescommitted by him would have come to light. Even as per theprosecution, the co-accused are the close associates of the mainaccused and that being so, the failure on the part of theinvestigating agency in apprehending the co-accused in spite ofhaving sway over the main accused translates a different meaning,warranting this Court, in the interests of Justice, to order transferof investigation to some other Agency. Inasmuch as the criminalactivities of the accused would also entail prosecution under thePrevention of Corruption Act and since it is strongly felt by thisCourt that this is a peculiar case where the matter has to beinvestigated by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption,direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to forthwith transmit theCase Diary and all other connected records available with him to theDirector, DVAC, who shall, having regard to the seriousness of theallegations made against the main accused/Inspector of Police (undersuspension), appoint a competent officer to investigate into theallegations with a positive direction to conclude the process asexpeditiously as possible. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Petition is ordered accordingly.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarJI.To1. The Director,Directorate of Vigilance and Anti CorruptionChennai.2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Kovilpalayam Police Station,Coimbatore.3. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.V.M.G.Ramakkannan, Advocate, SR.14579.Crl.O.P. No.2071/2009.SCD(CO)RVL 29.04.2009