High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED ::23-11-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20789 of 2007M/s.TVS Finance and Services Ltd.,rep.by its Authorised SignatoryMr.G.Saikumar....Petitioner -vs-1.The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-8.2.The Additional Director General of Police, Admiralty House, CBCID, Chennai-2.3.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-II, Egmore, Chennai-8....Respondents Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.For petitioner : Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel, for M/s.Anand, Abdul & Vinodh Associates.For respondents : Mr.A.Saravanan, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side).O R D E RThis petition has been filed, praying to transfer Crime No.251of 2007 on the file of third respondent to the file of secondrespondent and to direct the second respondent to investigate thematter and file a final report in accordance with law. 2. Petitioner lodged a complaint on 24.04.2007 with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, on the basis of which anF.I.R.in Crime No.251 of 2007 came to be registered by CentralCrime Branch, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 418 and 420IPC. He has arraigned as many as 36 persons as accused and thecomplaint contains various transactions among the parties. He hasnow come forward with a request before this Court, stating that thethird respondent, who is the Investigating Officer in the case, hasnot evinced any interest in the progress of the investigation and,hence, the case may be directed to be transferred to the file ofsecond respondent. It is further alleged in the petition that thethird respondent has shown only the offences punishable underSections 418 and 420 IPC in the F.I.R., leaving out all otheroffences, by not even proceeded further. It is also mentioned thatthe third respondent has not arrested the accused in the case andno action has been taken in respect of further investigation; hehas not summoned and enquired the accused; F.I.R. is a mere eyewash and that unnecessary delay in completing the investigationcauses prejudice to the petitioner. 3. While this case was taken up by this Court on 13.07.2007,this Court directed the Investigating Officer to produce the entirematerials collected by him before the Court and the reasons forreferring the matter as a mistake of fact, in view of the fact thatthe amount involved in the matter ran to Rs.7.50 Crores.Accordingly, the third respondent produced the Case Diary beforethis Court and he has also filed a counter affidavit. 4. In the counter, the third respondent has sworn to theeffect that no cognizable offences are disclosed against any of theaccused; the petitioner has been keen on arresting the parties tothe transaction; the entire case of the petitioner has arisen outof contractual obligations; the petitioner's belated approach aftera lapse of several years on the loan transactions cannot form abasis for penal action and that the case, after sustainedinvestigation, has been referred to as of civil nature. It isfurther averred in the affidavit that a referred notice was sent tothe petitioner by registered post, but he refused to receive thesame; there are no materials to substantiate any offence, ascontended by the petitioner; the request of the petitioner fortransferring the matter has no basis and that the investigation wasconducted in a fair and proper manner and in accordance with law.5. This Court has scrutinised the Case Diary carefully, fromwhich it is seen that the third respondent has examined andrecorded the statement of the complainant, namely, Saikumar, underSection 161 (3) Cr.P.C.; he also examined the fourth accused byname Ravisankar Prasad and eighth accused by name Mukund Vijayanand recorded their statements. As far as the merits of the matterare concerned, he has examined the complainant alone on his side.With regard to the other part of investigation, he has examined oneNatarajan and Mahadevan, who are working as Security Guards, who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appear to have stated that a three-storeyed building is beingconstructed and the same is on the verge of completion. Exceptingthe above said statement, there are no other statements of anywitnesses available in the Case Diary.6. Interesting it is to note that the Legal Adviser to theCommissioner of Police by name Nataraj has given a legal opinion onthe request of third respondent on 15.05.2007, to the effect thatManohar Prasad, Ravisankar Prasad and Mukund Vijayan have committedoffences under Sections 418 and 420 IPC. He has provided riders tohis final legal opinion, as stated above, by saying that it is hispersonal view and it will not bind the Investigating Officer, whohas got a right to express a different view and that only forofficial assistance, he has given his opinion. It is pertinent tomention that after after receiving the said opinion, the thirdrespondent has probed the matter further and, on 25.06.2007,referred the matter with the report again, for legal opinion. On04.07.2007, the above said Legal Adviser to the Commissioner ofPolice has given a contradictory opinion, stating that he had gonethrough the file carefully and it appeared that the final report ofthe Inspector was proper, by endorsing his view, and that on15.05.2007, at the time of registering the F.I.R., he expressedsome opinion and the same could be considered by the InvestigatingOfficer, which might also be included in the final report. Againafter receiving the said opinion, on 07.07.2007, the thirdrespondent has submitted a report to the first respondent statingthat the R.C.Notice would be served on the complainant soon and thefinal report submitted to the Court concerned. Finally, he preparedthe R.C.Notice on 09.07.2007 and made arrangements to serve thesame on the complainant. The Head Constable, who had gone to theoffice of the complainant, on enquiry, was informed by onePurushottaman on behalf of the complainant that the complainant wasnot present and when the said cop asked him to receive the notice,he refused it. 7. Though, at the first instance, the opinion of the LegalAdviser to the Commissioner of Police shows that offences underSections 418 and 420 IPC would be made out against three accused,subsequently, acting upon the further report of the InvestigatingOfficer, the very same Legal Adviser came forward and endorsed theview of the Investigating Officer, to refer the case as of civilnature. In other words, though the legally qualified person, aftergoing through the allegations in the F.I.R., reached a conclusionthat specific offences are made out against three accused,subsequently, he retracted his version and supported the action of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Investigating Officer. Notwithstanding this Court has notmade an in-depth scrutiny of the allegations levelled by thecomplainant in his complaint, the allegations prima facie show thatcertain offences may be made out. which is for the InvestigatingOfficer to act upon.8. I have given my careful thought to the rival submissions.Considering the nature of allegations in the F.I.R. and the variousstages of investigation, I feel, re-investigation by a competentauthority would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the secondrespondent is directed to depute a competent Police Officer in therank of DSP to take up further investigation in the matter,complete the same and file a final report within a period of threemonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Criminal Original Petition is allowed.DixitSd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.To1.The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-8.2.The Additional Director General of Police, Admiralty House, CBCID, Chennai-2.3.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-II, Egmore, Chennai-8.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.1 cc to Mr.P.H.Manoj Pandian, Advocate, SR.69863MDR (CO)dv/4.12.CRL.O.P.No.20789 of 2007