Madras High Court
K.S.Arjunan vs Mr.Praveen Sinha on 14 August, 2018
1
B E F O R E T H E MADU RAI B E N C H O F MADRA S HIGH C O U RT
DAT E D : 2 1 . 0 1 . 2 0 1 9
C O R AM:
T H E HO N O U R A B L E MR. J U S T I C E K . K . S A S IDHA R A N
and
T H E HO N O U R A B L E MR. J U S T I C E P. D. AUDI K E S AVA L U
C o n t e m p t P e tition (MD) N o. 1 6 6 2 o f 2 0 1 8
in W. P.(MD) N o. 1 3 2 3 1 o f 2 0 1 8
1.K.S.Arjunan
2.Maria Sesu Joelraja
3.M.Maharaja
4.Poolpandi
5.Sakthivel
6.Karuppasamy
7.Muthukumar ... Petitioners/Petitioners
-vs-
Mr.Praveen Sinha,
Joint Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
3rd Floor, E.V.K. Sampath Maligai,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Contemnor/Respondent No.3
P R AY E R : Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
praying to punish the Respondent herein for contempt of court for disobedience
of the order Passed by this Hon'ble court dated 14.08.2018 made in W.P.(MD) No.
13231 of 2018 on the file of this Hon'ble court.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.Shaji Chellan
For Respondent : Mr.Ejaz Khan
Special Public Prosecutor
http://www.judis.nic.in
Assisted by Mr.Sudeo Kumar
2
O R DE R
(Ord er o f t h e C o ur t w a s m a d e b y K . K . S A S IDHA R A N , J . )
The petitioners filed this Contempt Petition alleging that the Central
Bureau of Investigation while recording the First Information Report failed to
incorporate the names of the accused not withstanding the order dated
14.08.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.13231 of 2018.
2.The First Information recorded by the Central Bureau of Investigation
proceeds as if the accused are unknown persons. It is the contention of the
petitioners that the names have already been incorporated in the complaint and
as such it is not correct to indicate the accused persons are unknown persons.
3.When the Contempt Petition came up for hearing earlier, we have
directed the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI to file a report with regard
to the action taken pursuant to the complaint preferred by the petitioners. The
learned Special Public Prosecutor produced a report authored by the
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai indicating that
the investigation would be conducted pursuant to the complaint preferred by the
petitioners against the persons mentioned in their complaint to ascertain the
complicity and involvement of those persons.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
4.The complaint of the petitioners is that the names of the accused were
not found in the First Information Report. According to the Superintendent of
Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, investigation would be conducted
pursuant to the complaint preferred by the petitioners to ascertain the complicity
and involvement of those persons.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that there
should be a direction to the respondent to treat the complaint of the petitioners
as part and parcel of the records. The learned Special Government Pleader for
Central Bureau on instruction submitted that the complaint of the petitioners
would be very much part of the records in Crime No.RC.
8/S/2018/CBI/SCB/Chennai.
6.We do not find any reason to keep the Contempt Petition pending, in
view of the explanation given by Central Bureau of Investigation. The Contempt
Petition is closed.
(K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.) (P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.)
21.01.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sj
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
K . K . S A S IDHA RA N , J .
and P. D. AUDI K E S AVA L U , J .
sj To Mr.Praveen Sinha, Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, 3rd Floor, E.V.K. Sampath Maligai, Chennai – 600 006.
C o n t e m p t P e tition (MD) N o. 1 6 6 2 o f 2 0 1 8 21.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in