Madras High Court
Dalichand vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 June, 2014
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24-6-2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.963 of 2013 Dalichand .. Petitioner vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Inspector of Police C1 Flower Bazar Police Station Chennai .. Respondent Criminal original petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to transfer the investigation in Crime No.1458/2011, on the file of the first respondent police, to CB CID. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manohar For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks for transfer of investigation in Crime No.1458/2011, on the file of the Inspector of Police, C1 Flower Bazar Police Station, Chennai to CB CID for appropriate action.
2.The case of the petitioner/de-facto complainant is that one Mohan Bishonoi @ Munna was acquainted to the petitioner through a common friend, who introduced him as a real estate businessman, and the said person offered to get agricultural lands for the petitioner in his native place at Rajasthan. Based on certain representations made by the said Munna, the petitioner is said to have parted with a sum of Rs.75 lakhs for the purchase of lands. Thereafter, the said Munna did not contact the petitioner and he was giving false details, which compelled the petitioner to give a complaint against the said Munna before the respondent police, and it was registered as Crime No.1458/2011 for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
3.It is further stated by the petitioner that based on the efforts put by the petitioner, they were able to trace the relatives of the said accused and also persuaded Rajasthan Police authorities to help them in the situation and they also helped them and traced the whereabouts of the accused and the said police also recorded statements from the accused as well as from his relatives, in which the accused is said to have admitted that he had taken the money from the petitioner and spent lavishly for various purposes including purchase of jewels and vehicles and such other things.
4.The petitioner would further state that all these facts were made known to the respondent police and yet, the respondent police did not evince any interest to proceed with the matter; but, they are keeping it pending.
5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further state that apart from keeping the matter pending, there was also threat by the respondent police because the petitioner was pursuing the complaint. In these circumstances, the petitioner sought for transfer of investigation to the CB CID and filed this petition.
6.The respondent police has filed a counter affidavit dated 6.2.2013, stating that after the registration of the complaint, a team was formed for the purpose of investigation of the case and the team went over to Rajasthan, where they came to know that the accused person was already involved in a crime and committed offences, wherein he has been arrested by Karada Police Station in Crime No.70/2012 and remanded to judicial custody. It is further stated that the petitioner has given a requisition to the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, for issuance of P.T. Warrant for formally arresting the accused and the P.T. Warrant was issued by the Court on 5.11.2012. It is further submitted that after the P.T. Warrant was obtained, it was ascertained that the accused was arrested by Karada Police Station in Crime No.70/2012 and was confined in the Bimal Sub Prison, Rajasthan. Thereafter, the respondent police is said to have secured the accused and produced him before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 15.11.2012, and the respondent filed an affidavit asking for custody of the accused for five days, but three day custody alone was granted. It is further stated by the respondent police that in the course of the custody, the accused has confessed that he has spent the entire money lavishly with the friends and that the money has not been invested in his native place and therefore, there was no recovery from the accused. The respondent police would further state that in spite of repeated request, the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence with regard to the source of income, bank statement and mode of transaction where they decided to purchase the property and such other matter and therefore, it is stated that there is no lapse on the part of the respondent police.
7.The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit stating that there is a clear lapse on the part of the respondent police in the conduct of investigation and the respondent has colluded with the accused. It is further stated that the respondent police is not taking any action to cancel the order of bail, since the condition imposed for grant of bail has not been complied with. Therefore, it is stated that the investigation should be transferred.
8.After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perusing the materials on record, it is seen that the complaint was given to the respondent police on 28.10.2011, in respect of an occurrence, which is said to have occurred on 2.9.2011. The FIR was registered on the same day in Crime No.1458/2011 for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. From the counter affidavit, it is seen that though the FIR was registered on 28.10.2011, no action appears to have been taken by the respondent police. It is only at the instance of the petitioner, certain details were gathered stating that the accused is in Rajasthan. It is only thereafter, a team was formed and sent to Rajasthan to secure the accused and it has occurred during October, November and December, 2012, i.e., nearly one year after the complaint. It is only after the team formed by the respondent police, went to Rajasthan, they found that the accused was arrested in respect of another crime at Rajasthan and remanded to judicial custody. The petition taken for issuance of P.T. Warrant, was allowed by the Court on 5.11.2012, and the accused was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 15.11.2012. In the counter affidavit, the respondent police has admitted that a statement was recorded from the accused, wherein he has confessed that he has spent the entire money lavishly. Thereafter, the respondent police have failed to proceed with the matter in the manner known to law and abruptly kept the matter pending. If the respondent police have recorded a statement from the accused, in which he is said to have admitted/confessed as regards the guilt, then obviously the prosecution should have acted promptly to bring the culprit to books; but, rather the counter affidavit proceeds otherwise which clearly reveals that there is absolute slackness on the part of the respondent police to investigate the matter. That apart, the manner in which the complaint has been dealt with does not infuse confidence in the mind of the Court that the investigation has proceeded in the right direction. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for transfer.
9.Accordingly, the case in Crime No.1458/2011, on the file of the respondent police, shall stand transferred to the file of the CB CID, Chennai for fresh investigation. The respondent police is directed to hand over all the records forthwith to CB CID. This criminal original petition is allowed.
24-6-2014 Index: yes/no nsv To:
1.The Inspector of Police C1 Flower Bazar Police Station Chennai
2.The Inspector of Police CB CID, Chennai
3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
nsv CRL.O.P.No.963 of 2013 Dt: 24-6-2014