Madras High Court
The Tamilnadu State Apex vs State Rep. By on 24 August, 2016
Author: G.Chockalingam
Bench: G.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.08.2016 (Orders Reserved on : 24.06.2016) CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.R.C.No.463 of 2016 The Tamilnadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its authorised officer, Mr.K.Kesavulu, S/o. Krishnan Assistant General Manager (legal) No.223, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai - 600 001. ... Petitioner/De facto complainant Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCB-III, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. ... Respondent/Investigating Officer Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dated 25.09.2015 in Cr.No.110 of 2005. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Abdullah For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) - - - - - ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 25.09.2015 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Cr.No.110 of 2005.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that the de facto complainant is the Tamilnadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd. During the year 2004, the central office of the petitioner herein/de facto complainant received a demand draft dated 14.12.2004 bearing No.589750 for a sum of Rs.5,00,017 and also a demand draft dated 22.12.2004 bearing No.589758 for a sum of Rs.2,00,001/-. The said demand drafts were issued by Omalur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., in favour of one Md.Jaffer, Chennai. When the said demand drafts were presented for realisation on 24.12.2004 and 23.12.2004 respectively at ICICI Bank Ltd., Anna Salai, Chennai, the same were honoured. The drawee had also withdrawn the money from his bank account with ICICI Bank Ltd. Subsequently, it was found that actually the issuing bank had issued demand drafts only for a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively and that the amounts mentioned in the demand drafts were altered to Rs.5,00,017/- and Rs.2,00,001/- respectively both in numbers and in words in the two demand drafts. The petitioner co-operated for the investigation. But, the Investigating Officer has not investigated the matter expeditiously. Hence, the petitioner/de facto complainant has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.36609 of 2007 before this Court seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 therein to transfer the case in Crime No.110 of 2005, on the file of the Central Crime Branch/IV, Egmore, Chennai, to Central Bureau of Investigation for further investigation. This Court, by order dated 02.11.2009, dismissed the said petition. In the above circumstances, the Investigating Officer has filed a Charge Sheet before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, without following the procedure, erroneously passed an order stating that the de facto complainant called absent. But the counsel for the de facto complainant filed a protest petition which is recorded. While R.C.S. is recorded and accepted, the petitioner/de facto complainant is directed to take appropriate legal steps in separate. Hence, the R.C.S. is accepted as undetectable. Hence, the above said order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may be set aside and the matter may be referred to the Investigating Officer for further investigation.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would contend that the learned Magistrate, after considering the entire materials, correctly passed the order and there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and hence, the learned Government Advocate prayed that the criminal revision case may be dismissed.
4. This Court called for the entire case diary. On a perusal of the case diary, it is clear that the Investigating Officer took up investigation in this case and the Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore had sent a letter on intimation stating in his letter the passport in No.A7958387 dated 26.07.1999 was issued in favour of Sri.Mohamed Jaffer, S/o.Wahab Saba, No.4/1, Ist Cross Hillal Street, Muslim Colony, Bangalore-45. Further, the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-IV, Egmore, Chennai, has sent a letter to the Officer In-charge, AIRTEL Office, Bangalore, regarding the Cell Phone No.9845514344. Since already the particulars of the passport and the address of the passport holder and also cell phone number from airtel authority were collected by the Investigating Officer, he has not proceeded on the above basis and no further materials available whether the Investigating Officer done the investigation on that basis.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Police Standing Order 562 (2) which reads as follows:-
"562. Refusal of Investigation (1) .....
(2) Grounds for refusal.-
Investigation may be properly refused in the following cases.---
(a) Triviality -
Trivial offences, such as are contemplated in section 95 of the Indian Penal Code.
(b) Civil nature -
Cases clearly of a civil nature, or in which the complainant is obviously endeavouring to set the criminal law in motion to support a civil right.
(c) Petty thefts -
Cases of petty theft of property less than Rs.10 in value cognizable by a Village Headman under Regulation IV of 1821, provided that the accused person is not an old offender, nor a professional criminal, and that the property does not consist of sheep or goats.
(d) Injured person does not wish inquiry -
Unimportant cases in which the person injured does not wish inquiry, unless (1) the crime is suspected to be the work of a professional or habitual offender or (ii) investigation appears necessary in the interests of the public.
(e) Undetectable simple cases.-
Simple cases of house breaking or house trespass and petty thefts of unidentifiable property, in none of which cases, is there any clue to work upon or any practical chance of detection, provided that there is nothing to indicate that the offence has been committed by professional criminal.
(f) Exaggerated assaults -
Assault in cases which have been obviously exaggerated by the addition of other charges such as theft."
6. In this case, the issuing bank had issued two demand drafts only for Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively and that the amounts mentioned in the demand drafts were altered to Rs.5,00,017/- and Rs.2,00,001/- respectively both in numbers and in words in the two demand drafts. Hence, as per the above provision of Police Standing Order, the Investigating Officer cannot close the case as undetectable and file a final report. In this case, since there was no proper investigation made and also considering the large scale of misappropriation of money of the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case for ordering further investigation. Hence, the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is liable to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Cr.No.110 of 2005, dated 25.09.2015, is quashed, and the matter is referred to the Investigating Officer for conducting further investigation. The Investigating Officer is directed to collect further materials in this case and complete the investigation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
24.08.2016 Internet :Yes Jrl To
1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police, CCB-III, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
G.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
Jrl Order in Crl.R.C.No.463 of 2016 24.08.2016