M.Arvind v. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai

: Mr.P.Kumaresan in both the Crl.OP. For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, PP assisted by Mr.C.Emalias, APP in both the Crl.OPs. Mr.N.Chandrasekar Spl.PP for CBI – R4 in Crl.OP.8232/14 COMMON ORDER Both the criminal original petitions are filed in connection with the petitioner’s complaints dated 22.06.2012 and 06.03.2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-II, ALGSC-II, Chennai. While the first complaint was addressed to the Chief Minister's Special Cell which was thereafter forwarded to the Inspector of Police for appropriate action, the complaint dated 06.03.2014 was addressed to the Commissioner of Police and the same was thereafter forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch. Both the complaints were after enquiry by the successive Inspectors of Police, closed as seen from the status report, dated 29.08.2013 and 3

11.03.2014 filed by the successive Inspectors of Police, CCB II, Chennai. While Crl.OP.No.30375 of 2012 is filed for directing the Commissioner of Police to register the complaint dated 22.06.2012, Crl.OP.No.8232 of 2014 is filed for directing the CBI to take over the investigation in connection with the petitioner’s complaint, dated

22.06.2012, from the file of the Inspector of Police and also the petitioner's complaint, dated 06.03.2014, on the file of the Commissioner of Police and to proceed with the same as per law.

2.Heard the rival submissions made by all.

3.The perusal of copy of the complaints dated 22.06.2012 and

06.03.2014 would reveal that both the complaints are containing the same allegations regarding the alleged act of land grabbing by one M.V.Muthuramalingam. While the first complaint is mainly against M.V.Muthuramalingam, the second complaint contains allegations against the Police officials as if the police officials did not conduct proper enquiry and the conduct of the police officials in favouring the opposite party warrants reinvestigation by different investigating agency.

4.As already stated, both the complaints are filed by one Arvind S/o.C.Mani. The main allegations in the complaints proceed that the 4 complainant’s father was in possession and enjoyment of vast extent of land in Surapattu Village, Ambattur and M.V. Muthuramalingam, who is the owner of education institutions, approached him for purchase of the same and the parties arrived at an agreement to purchase the land measuring 25 acres for totally Rs.1,18,75,000/- (i.e.) at Rs.4.75 lakhs per acre and Rs.16 lakhs was paid towards advance and the complainant’s father at the instance of M.V.Muthuramalingam executed sale deeds in his favour during 1995 in respect of the land measuring about 9 acres and worth about Rs.45 lakhs, without receiving the sale consideration and the complainant’s father again executed sale deeds in respect of remaining 16 acres without receiving any sale consideration and the complaint’s father was paid only 45 lakhs representing the value of 9 acres and was not paid the sale consideration for the remaining 16 acres, inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant’s father and on his failure to do so, the complainant's father fell ill between 1998 and

2007. Under such circumstances, the complainant was also not able to continue his studies in abroad and had to discontinue the same for want of money and had come down to India and after his father recovered from illness, the complainant's father again approached M.V.Muthuramalingam from 2007 onwards and had been demanding the balance sale consideration and to get back the original documents 5 in the custody of the complainant's father after settling the entire amount. But M.V.Muthuramalingam has been evading to pay money on some pretext or other and at one point of time, he refused to pay the money and in the meanwhile, his father died and the complainant again went to the house of M.V.Muthuramalingam and demanded balance sale consideration and he was threatened with dire consequences, in the event of his making any demand and the sons of Muthuramalingam by names Velmohan and Velmurugan also threatened to assault him and the petitioner apprehending danger to his life, did not thereafter go to them, but approached the police.

5.In short, what is alleged herein is that the petitioner's father executed sale deeds in respect of 25 acres presently valuing about 35 crores in favour of M.V.Muthuramalingam without receiving full sale consideration and though M.V.Muthuramalingam undertook to pay the money and left the parent title deeds and few original sale deeds and handed over seven cheques towards discharge of his liability to pay entire sale consideration, the opposite party thereafter failed to make any payment and threatened the complainant and his father for making any demand for the balance amount, etc.

6.Though the sale transactions related to the year 1995, the first complaint in this regard is forwarded to the Chief Minister’s Cell on 6

22.06.2012, after nearly 16 years. The complainant's father by name Mani, who according to the complainant, executed the sale deeds by himself and acted as mediator for the execution of the sale deeds by others, did not make any complaint till his life time. The first complaint came to be filed by the petitioner only after his father's death during

2012. It is hardly believable that after the execution of the sale deed, how they waited for nearly 17 years to make any claim in writing for the repayment of the balance sale consideration. Further, the perusal of the particulars available herein would reveal that out of 25 acres, 6½ acres of land were in the name of the complainant's father by name Mani and rest of the lands were in the names of different individuals and all the sale deeds were executed by other individuals either by themselves or through their agent or through the petitioner's father Mani. Out of total number of sale deeds, except 13 sale deeds relating to 4½ acres, the remaining sale deeds are in the custody of the Vendor. Though the complaints further proceed as if the purchaser of the property obtained loan from the bank on the basis of the forged documents, the material particulars regarding the bank, which sanctioned the loan, are not furnished either in the complaints or in Section 161 Cr.P.C statements. 7

7.The first complaint sent to the Chief Minister's Cell was forwarded to the concerned Commissioner of Police and was thereafter forwarded to the Inspector of Police, who directed the complainant to appear before the Inspector of Police on 20.2.2014. The second complaint dated 6.3.2014 addressed to the Commissioner of Police proceeds as if the enquiry was attended by both the parties and the same was adjourned to 1.3.2014 and the complainant was called to CCB office on 1.3.2014 and thereafter enquiry was repeatedly adjourned and the complaint was duly responded by the IO and it was finally adjourned to 5.3.2014, on which date, the Inspector of Police was supportive to other party and informed as if FIR was registered for the missing of the documents and on the basis of the certificate issued by the police department, the loan was obtained and the complainant was threatened in the presence of the Inspector of Police, who did not do anything and his cell phone was seized. The complaint meted with an end, seeking appointment of another neutral officer to conduct fair enquiry. However, the status reports filed before this court dated

29.8.2013 by B.Jayashankar and dated 11.3.2014 by PR.Chidambara Murugesan, who succeeded the earlier IO would disclose the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and the reasons for closure of the enquiry as the issue involved in the case is civil in nature. The status report filed by the second IO would reveal 8 further nature of the enquiry held by him and the circumstances under which and the reasons for which, he closed the complaint on the failure of the complainant to state the material substance in the complaint. That is why, the petitioner is now before this court for the relief stated supra. Thus, the combined appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the conduct of the parties involved in this case and the reading of the status report filed by both the Inspectors of police would compel this court to hold that it is not a fit case, wherein the investigation by CBI is warranted.

8.As already referred to, the sum and substance of the allegations raised in the complaints are the failure on the part of the purchaser to pay the balance sale consideration. In this context, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent officials cited the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 510 : (2014) 5 SCC 252 (Mohd. Haroon and others v. Union of India and another), wherein, the Apex Court has laid down the circumstances under which the enquiry is directed to be held by CBI. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 110 of the decision, extracted the following principles laid down in its earlier judgments reported in (i)1999 SCC (Cri) 1196 (Common Cause v. Union of India); (ii)(2002) 5 SCC 521 (Minor Irrigation and Rural Engg. Services 9 v. Sahngoo Ram Arya); and (iii)(2010) 3 SCC 571 (State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights): (i) no direction can be issued to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed offence or not; (ii)though the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution has power to direct an inquiry by CBI, the same can be exercised only in cases, where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry; and (iii)such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police and this extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. In my considered view, in the present case, no such circumstances is available to order enquiry by CBI.

9.Here is the case, wherein the concerned Inspectors of Police have conducted sufficient enquiry by summoning the parties and by recording their statements and thereafter closed the enquiry firstly on the ground that the issue involved is civil in nature and secondly on 10 the ground that material allegations raised in the complaint are not duly spoken. It may be true that the complainant has, except himself not produced any other witnesses particularly, other individuals who are parties to the sale deeds, in support of the allegations raised in the complaint that none of them paid sale consideration due to them as stated in the sale deeds. Neither the complainant nor other individual vendors approached appropriate civil forum for recovery of balance sale consideration, if any, within the period of limitation and their failure to do so remains unexplained.

10.Notwithstanding the same, the Inspectors of Police could have called for further particulars regarding bank transaction and the circumstance under which the original documents are in the custody of the complainant's father and thereafter with the complainant and also in support of the allegations regarding the act of criminal intimidation. The concerned Inspectors of Police in my considered view, could have conducted further enquiry in other incidental matters alleged in the complaint.

11.The perusal of the records would reveal that the complaint was earlier occasion, enquired by Vijayaraghavan, Inspector of Police, CCB Chennai and the same was after enquiry closed on 4.3.2013 for 11 want of sufficient reasons. The complainant has also not explained as to why the cheques are not presented before the bank concerned for encashment. Whereas, the status report filed by the third IO would give a different figure as if it is the complainant, who did not cooperate with the respondent police at the time of enquiry by producing any document to prove the payment of sale consideration by the petitioner's father to the owner and non payment of sale consideration to the respective owners by the purchaser. The third IO also accepted the findings of the previous IO and concluded his enquiry for want of sufficient materials to substantiate the complainant's allegations.

12.Under such circumstances, this court deems it fit to direct the third respondent police to conduct further enquiry, in respect of the complaint dated 22.6.2012 in accordance with law and the same shall be monitored by the Assistant Commissioner of concerned Range.

13.With the above direction both the criminal original petitions are disposed of. Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No

05.12.2014 12 K.B.K.VASUKI, J. To

1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch II, Team-I, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Director General of Police, Santhome High Road, Chennai-4.

3.The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-II, ALGSC-II, Egmore, Chennai

5.The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

6.The Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras. Crl.O.P.Nos.30375/2012 and

05.12.2014