Senthil Kumar v. Sapy Bedding Products

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 15.09.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHICrl.O.P.Nos.3880, 5608, 18639, 18641, 18702, 18703, 18954 and 18962 of 2009 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009 in Crl.O.P. No. 3880 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009 in each Crl.O.P.Nos.18639, 18641, 18702, 18703, 18954 & 189621.Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.3880, 18639, 18641, 18702, 18703, 18954 and 189622.Sapy Bedding Products, New No.2, Old No.17 Ground Floor, Tank Street, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 24 ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 5608 of 2009 Versus1. Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai Suburban Commissionarate, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai.600 016.3. Navaneetha Krishnan4. Arokiyaprakasam5. Shalini6. Ramadoss7. Kamaraj8. Ganesh ... Respondents 1 to 8 in Crl.O.P. No. 3880 of 20091. Senthil Kumar2. The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Sub-Urban Chennai, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai Chennai - 8 .... Respondents 1 & 2 in Crl.O.P.No.5608 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State rep. by theInspector of Police, S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai - 600 091. .... Respondent in Crl.O.P.Nos. 18639, 18641, 18702, 18703 8954State rep. by theInspector of Police, Pallikarrnnai Police Station Kancheepuram (Dt.) .... Respondent in Crl.O.P.No. 18962 Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.3880: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.Cseeking for a direction to the Director General of Police namely the1st respondent herein to hand over the case of the petitioner againstthe respondents 2 to 8 to the Central Bureau of Investigation ofSouthern Region to investigate and register the case of thepetitioner against the respondents 2 to 8.Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.5608: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.Cseeking for a direction to set aside the order and cancel the bail inC.M.P. No. 5428 of 2008 dated 02.02.2009 on the file of learnedJudicial Magistrate No. 1, Poonamallee. Prayer in Crl.O.P.Nos.18639, 18641, 18702, 18703, 18954 and 18962:Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction tocall for the records and quash the FIR in Cr. Nos. 209, 220, 223,521, 576 on the file of Madipakkam Police Station and Cr. No. 415 of2009 on the file of the Pallikaranai Police Station.For petitioner : Mr.R. Amernath Rao Khande in Crl.O.P.Nos. 3880, 18639, 18641, 18702, 18703,18954 and 18962 :Mr. R.G. Krishnamurthi in Crl.O.P.No. 5608, For Respondents: Mr. N.R. ElangoAddl. Public ProsecutorC O M M O N O R D E RThe petitioner is an accused in several cases within andoutside the city of Chennai and alleged that the Police Authoritiesfoisted several false cases for the purpose of detaining him underthe Act 14 of Tamil Nadu Goonda 1982. A complaint was sent to theauthorities by wife of the petitioner on 21.12.2008 and by thepetitioner on 23.12.2008 through the prison authorities. Since the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same has not been taken on file for investigation, the petitionerseeks for a direction to register the case and transfer theinvestigation of the case to CBI. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner was enquired and arrested on 02.12.2008 and the AssistantCommissioner of Police demanded for Rs.One lakh for settling thematter and the same has been refused. That because the petitioner hasfiled petition with allegations against Police officers with theaforesaid prayer, they registered several other cases and in theresult, they have detained him on 21.02.207 under Goonda's Act. Theorder of detention against the petitioner was set aside on 16.08.2007by the Bench of High Court in H.P. No. 366 of 2007. Afterconsideration of Sub-Urban Police Commissionarate, 11 other caseswere, subsequently registered and the petitioner was detained, secondtime as a "Goonda" on 23.12.2008 and his detention was quashed byorders passed by the Bench of High Court in H.P. No. 69 of 2009 on20.01.2009. It is further submitted that six cases registered, areconcocted by the Police after filing of the aforesaid petitionsbefore the High Court. The petitioner, by filing petitions seeks fora direction for transfer of the investigation of those cases to CBIfor further investigation. 3. Meanwhile, the petitioner has preferred Crl.O.P. Nos.18639,18641, 18702, 18703, 18954 and 18962, seeking to quash FIRs,registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that though several cases were pending against thepetitioner, the said quash petitions have been filed against those 6FIRs. Though it is claimed that the complaint of the petitionerdated 21.12.2008 was enquired by the Dy. Commissioner of Police andeven though prima facie allegation has been made out against theerring Police Officers, enquiry was not conducted in the manner knownto law, since they are the subordinate police officers of the enquiryofficer. It is further claimed that those erring police Officerslooted and taken away the belongings of the petitioner worth Rs.1crore in the form of seizure and the same was not deposited in thecourt. On perusal of the case records and documentary materials, itwill go to show that the case has been falsely foisted on thepetitioner. The family members of the petitioner were also ill-treated and several representations were made. The report submittedby Commissioner of Police is also biased, motivated and there is noiota of truths in it and made to protect his sub-ordinate PoliceOfficers. Several case records were manipulated and that though someof the cases were transferred to CBCID for further investigation, thepetitioner lost his hopes as to whether the investigation of thecases will be conducted in a fair and independent manner. Hence, thepetitioner seeks for quashing of the FIRs or in the alternativetransfer of those cases to CBI.4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the alleged complaints dated 21.12.208 and 23.12.2008 are, in fact,not the complaints, but representations sent after detention of thepetitioner to the detaining authorities to revoke the order ofdetention. Those representations were considered as per the procedureContemplated under Detention law and a reply has also been sent. Allthe materials were produced before the advisory board and afterreceiving opinion from the board, the detention was confirmed. Onlyon certain technical grounds, the order of detention passed by theGovernment was quashed. Therefore the complaint, as claimed by thepetitioner, is not a complaint in the eye of law to register a caseand investigate and further transfer to CBI. However, submits thatcomplaints dated 21.12.2008 and 23.12.2008 were independentlyentrusted with a high ranking officer namely Deputy Commissioner ofPolice and all the allegations made against the Police officersincluding the Assistant Commissioner of Police were thoroughlyenquired and a report has been submitted to the effect that thoseallegations were made against the Police Officers only to create adefence and to escape from the crime committed by the accused. Sinceallegations were made against the Police Officers by the wife of thepetitioner, at the initiation of the Commissioner of Police, Sub-Urban Commissionarate, Chennai, most of the cases pending against thepetitioner including the cases for which petitions filed weretransferred to CBCID for further investigation, that out of 6 casesin which quash petitions were filed, three Crl.O.P.Nos. 18639, 18641and 18702 of 2009 were already transferred to CBCID and assured thatother cases pending against the petitioner will also be transferredto CBCID. Presently, 41 cases are pending against the petitioner andthe prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the cases and forquashing of FIRs does not arise at all. 5. By filing a petition for cancellation of bail in one of thecases in Crl.O.P.No.5608 of 2009, the defacto complainant submitsthat the bail was granted on a flimsy ground without considering thehabitual and grave nature of the offences committed, several caseswere registered against the petitioner and by adopting the similarmodus operandi, the petitioner has committed 41 cases by misusing theliberty, granted by the courts. It is therefore submitted that thepetitioner should not be allowed to enjoy the benefit, granted by anorder of the court and the bail granted may be canceled. 6. Heard the submissions made by both the parties and perusedthe materials available on record.7. Admittedly, 41 cases are pending against the petitioner. Someof the cases already registered, were transferred and pendinginvestigation by CBCID. The petitioner was detained twice as a'Goonda' by the Government. The petitioner seeks to quash the FIRs insix cases by preferring quash petitions mainly by attributing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ malafide reasons against the Police Officers. On perusal of thoseFIRs, I am of the considered opinion that prima facie materials areavailable to constitute cognizable offences. The investigating agencymust be allowed to continue to collect the materials and come to aconclusion in one way or other before filing of the final report.Investigation of the case cannot be quashed in the midway on theground of malafide attributed against the investigating Officer.Initially, FIR has been registered and investigation of the case hasbeen taken by the local jurisdiction Police Officers. Subsequently,in view of the allegation against some Police Officers, the caseswere transferred to some other investigating agency namely CBCID. Themalafide grounds alleged against those original investigatingofficers is not attributed to the new investigating officers. Thecontention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner thatCBCID also supervised by the Director General of Police, Tamil NaduGovernment cannot be taken as a valid ground for transfer of the caseto CBI. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in view ofthe allegation made against those Police Officers originallyinvestigated, those cases will also be transferred to CBCID. Undersuch circumstances, I do not find any merit to pass order in Crl.O.P.No. 3880 of 2009 to register the case, since enquiry has beenconducted and report has been submitted. In view of the facts andcircumstances of the case, transfer of investigation to CBI also doesnot arise. Therefore, Crl.O.P.No. 3880 of 2009 is dismissed for thereasons above mentioned and the quash petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.18639, 18641, 18702, 18703, 18954 and 18962, preferred by thepetitioner to quash FIRs are also dismissed. 8. The petition for cancellation of bail, filed by one of thedefacto complainants was preferred at a belated stage, since orderfor grant of bail has been passed on 24.12.2008. Moreover, it isreported that investigation of the case has been completed, finalreport has been submitted and the learned Magistrate has also takencognizance of the case. Under such circumstances, the relief grantedto the petitioner pending investigation need not be set aside.Therefore, Crl.O.P.No. 5608 is dismissed.9. Accordingly, by common order the Criminal Original Petitionsare disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions areclosed.ArSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. Judicial Magistrate No. I, Poonamallee2. Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.3. The Commissioner of Police Chennai Suburban Commissionarate, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai.600 016.4. The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Sub-Urban Chennai, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai Chennai - 85. TheInspector of Police, S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai - 600 091. 6. The Inspector of Police, Pallikarrnnai Police Station Kancheepuram (Dt.)7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai+ 2 CC to Mr.A.Thirumadan Advocate SR.47168)+ 1 CC to Mr.R.Amernath Rao Khande Advocate SR.47204.Crl.O.P.Nos.3880, 5608,18639,18641, 18702, 18703, 18954 and 18962 of 2009 KS(CO)VC(06.10.2009)