Madras High Court
A.G.Gopal vs The Director on 14 August, 2014
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:14.08.2014 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Crl.O.P.No.13820 of 2014 A.G.Gopal ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Greenways Road, Chennai 600 028. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to issue appropriate directions to the 2nd Respondent herein to apprehend the accused involved in Crime/FIR No.1 of 2014, dated 09.01.2014 pending on the file of the 2nd Respondent, enabling the investigating agency for a proper course of criminal investigation. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Karl Marx For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER
The Petitioner has filed the present Criminal Original Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the 2nd Respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Kancheepuram to apprehend the Accused involved in Crime No.1 of 2014 dated 09.01.2014 pending on his file.
2.According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner purchased the lands admeasuring 1 acre and 26 cents situated at Mannivakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District from one Lakshmiammal, K.Yelandammal, L.Suseela, N.Murugesan, M.N.Muthan, and M.N.Murthy, by means of registered Sale Deed dated 16.04.2007. Further, the said Sale Deed was effected in favour of the Petitioner, by the aforesaid persons, through their registered Power Agent viz., A.G.Subbulakshmi, who is none other than his wife. The said Power of Attorney Deed dated 13.07.1990 was registered as Document No.128/1990 on the file of Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Guduvancherry, Chennai.
3.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the said Lakshmiammal expired on 13.02.2007 and the said Suseela expired on 25.08.2003. Also that, Yelandammal had died recently. However, N.Murugesan and M.N.Muthan are residing at No.3/55, Anna Street, Mannivakkam, Chennai 600 048.
4.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to submit that the Petitioner purchased another property admeasuring 0.26 cents of Mannivakkam Village in Survey No.231/2B, proximate to the above property, from one Kannan and Murugesan on 16.04.2007 under Document No.5311 registered on the file of Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Guduvancherry, Chennai. The said sale was executed on the strength of a registered Power of Attorney dated 01.06.1989 executed by the said Kannan and Murugesan in favour of the Petitioner's wife A.G.Subbulakshmi under Document No.125 of 1989.
5.It is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that during the year 2012, i.e. exactly on 23.08.2012, when the Petitioner applied for encumbrances certificate with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Guduvancherry, Chennai and obtained the same, he was totally transfixed and consternated by the reflection of illegal entries in the encumbrances certificate to the effect that the said Yelandamma. N.Murugesan and N.Muthan along with their legal heirs had illegally/ fraudulently settled their alleged shares under two divergent release deeds in favour of one M.Ramesh, wife of late N.M.Murthy residing at No.3/55, Anna Street, Mannivakkam, Chennai 600 048.
6.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant goes on to add that under Document No.7759 of 2010 dated 23.09.2010, the said Yelandammal had released her alleged 1/5th share in Survey No.307/5, corresponding to 1 Acre and 6 cents and Survey No.231/2B to corresponding to 26 cents in favour of M.Ramani. The other release deed dated 30.07.2010 was by the legal heirs of N.Murugesan and N.Muthan together with the aforesaid Murugesan and N.Muthan along with one M.Sarojini and M.Saraswathi, who are the daughters of late N.Murthy together with T.Reeta and M.Devi both daughters of late Suseela in concert with one Lakshmana, husband of late Suseela, Charulatha and Parivallal had released their alleged rights of 4/5th share in favour of the said M.Ramani relating to property comprised in Survey No.307/5 corresponding to 1 Acre and 6 cents and the other property comprised in Survey No.231/2B corresponding to 26 cents.
7.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aforesaid recalcitrant persons had released their purported shares in Survey No.231/2B admeasuring 26 cents, favouring M.Ramani upon which survey number they had nothing to do with. All the aforesaid illegal release deeds were effected on the file of Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Guduvancherry, Kancheepuram District. The said Ramani had executed a registered Sale Deed on 06.06.2011 in favour of C.Sundari W/o.Sundaresan, residing at No.128, Robersonpet Circile, Kolar, Kolar District, Karnataka through her power agent one Chitra, W/o.Soundarajan. The said Soundarajan, a Village Administrative Officer was instrumental to concert with the aforesaid persons so as to conspire cheat and also to grab the Petitioner's valuable immovable property.
8.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the release deeds and the sale deed dated 06.06.2011 pertaining to Survey No.307/5 of 1 Acre 6 Cents, are non est and ab initio, in the eye of law.
9.At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner filed W.P.No.20382 of 2012 seeking the District Registrar to legally efface the said release deeds and sale deeds.
10.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the sale executed in his favour on 16.04.2007 pertaining to Survey No.307/5, (corresponding to 1 acre 6 cents) is perfectly valid and unassailable in law, notwithstanding the fact that two of the principals of the Power Deed coupled with the interest of the Petitioner's wife had passed away even prior to the execution of sale deed on 16.04.2007.
11.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that C.Sundari and M.Ramani filed a suit against the Petitioner and his wife A.G.Subbulakshmi in O.S.No.199 of 2013, pending on the file of Learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu as if the entire transaction was a civil transaction. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that if a prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed upon the allegations made in the complaint, then, the commencement of investigation in terms of Section 157(1) Cr.P.C. is a mandatory requirement of law.
12.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in O.S.No.199 of 2013 on the file of trial Court, it was averred that if a registered General Power of Attorney was executed and registered in respect of security towards its reciprocity, then, the same could not be nullified or annulled whatsoever.
13.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the said Ramani, who had received their 26 cents comprised in Survey No.231/ 2B of Mannivakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District through illegal release deeds from her relative at the illegal instigations and active conspiracy of the said Soundarajan, the retired Village Administrative Officer, [who acted as a Principal in the second Degree/Abettor) had jointly concerted (Ramani and Soundararajan) to create a false document by forging the signature of the Petitioner and had created a joint patta in favour of said Ramani and the Petitioner with the active participation of the registering and revenue authorities belonging to the office of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Guduvancherry and Chengalpattu Taluk wherein the other Revenue Employees like, Thalayari Village Administrative Officer, Surveyor, Head Surveyor, Tahsildar, Deputy Tahsildar, Zonal Tahsildar, Head Quarters Tahsildar had contributed their recalcitrant parts, squarely for monetary considerations.
14.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner filed a criminal complaint on 05.07.2013 with the District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram and Inspector of Police, Mannivakkam Police Station, addressed through registered post with acknowledgement due card, narrating the entire factual episode and backdrop under which the said unfortunate events took place, sought them to initiate criminal proceedings as against the erring persons, for the offences falling under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 read with 120 B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, this Court disposed of Crl.O.P.No.22650 of 2013, on 01.10.2013 when the Public Prosecutor informed that F.I.R. bearing No.71 of 2013 was registered. At present, the investigation was entrusted to Ramesh Babu, DSP, Crime Branch, Kancheepuram, who had failed to file the charge sheet despite this Court in Crl.O.P.No.27785 of 2013 on 28.10.2013 issued direction to file the charge sheet as expeditiously as possible.
15.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the said Soundararajan's possession of monumental immovable property is totally disproportionate to the known source of income and amenable to the penal jurisdiction of Prevention of the Corruption Act.
16.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said Soundararajan and his wife had bribed Revenue Officials viz., the Tahsildar and the Head Surveyors and the Village Administrative Officer who was employed at that point of time had secured joint patta in favour of Ramani and the Petitioner herein, without the Petitioner's knowledge by forging his signature and substantially also secured Joint Patta in favour of the said Ramani and Chitra, pertaining to 26 cents in S.No.231.2B of Mannivakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk. Further, the said Soundararajan had violated Rule 7, 7B, 7(3)(a) and 7(b)(11) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1973 as he had not intimidated the Government about his family assets and that of himself. Further, he had not secured permission in form VI prior to construction or under form VI A after construction. Also, he had violated Rule 8.
17.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the said Ramani and Sundari in concert with the said Soundararajan, retired VAO in order to counter blast and dilute the Petitioner's criminal complaint pending in Crime No.71 of 2013 had preferred a vexatious criminal complaint against the Petitioner and his wife on 10.04.2013 addressed to the DSP, Crime Branch, Kancheepuram, and to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram. The said Soundararajan is the linchpin and pivotal in creation and transfer of the said complaint dated 10.04.2014 into a FIR in Crime No.12 of 2014, at the instance, concert, connivance of the said Ramesh Babu, DSP, Crime Branch, Kancheepuram.
18.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramesh Babu, who had received the complaint from Ramani and Sundari, on 10.04.2014, as against the Petitioner and his wife, should have conducted a preliminary enquiry. However, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police had straight away filed FIR in Crime No.12 of 2014 for monetary consideration that too when the Petitioner connected with criminal case in Crime No.71 of 2013 is pending investigation and deliberately languishing without culminating into a charge sheet.
19.In the aforesaid circumstances, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to the 2nd Respondent to apprehend the Accused involved in Crime/FIR No.1 of 2014 dated 09.01.2014 pending on the file of the 2nd Respondent.
20.Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents that the documents are to be collected from the office of Sub Registrar, Guduvancherry and Revenue Authorities over a long period of time and that Sundari and Ramani had filed a civil Suit in O.S.No.199 of 2013 against the Petitioner and his wife on the file of District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.
21.Furthermore, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents contends that the Petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.22650 of 2013 and sought direction to register a case against the erring officials and even before filing of the aforesaid Criminal Original Petition by the Petitioner, on 18.09.2013, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Kancheepuram District registered a case in District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram in Crime No.71 of 2013 under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w. 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Yelandammal, Murugesan, Muthan, Moorthy and others.
22.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents submits that based on the Petition filed by the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.29410 of 2013 dated 19.12.2013, this Court directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to register a case against the Village Administrative Officer Soundarajan and Revenue Authorities and Sub-Registrars, Guduvancherry and based on the same, a case in Crime No.1 of 2014 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Kancheepuram Detachment was registered by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Kancheepuram Detachment on 09.01.2014 and the case is under investigation.
23.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents brings it to the notice of this Court that N.Soundararajan and his wife Chitra filed Crl.O.P.No.17537 of 2014 on the file of this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail and this Court, on 08.07.2014 had released them on Anticipatory Bail imposing certain conditions.
24.It is to be pointed out that the investigation involves not only collection of evidence but formation of opinion also.
25.It is to be noted that the term 'Charge Sheet' or 'Final Report' has not been defined in Criminal Procedure Code. As a matter of fact, the Charge Sheet or Final Report in whatever manner it is called, it only means a Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. which has to be filed by the Police Officer concerned on completion of his investigation.
26.It is to be remembered that the Investigating Officer is only required to submit a report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and nothing more. Indeed, he should not record a finding nor can he give a clean chit which is the function and power of the Court concerned, as contemplated in Criminal Procedure Code.
27.That apart, it is not for a Court of Law to keep track of an investigation and monitor its day-to-day progress. However, when an investigation crystalises into a Final Report as per Section 173 Cr.P.C., then, the concerned competent Court enjoins a duty with its authority sanctioned by law to scrupulously scrutinise the Final Report together with enclosures by applying its judicial mind.
28.In this connection, it is not out of place for this Court to make a relevant mention that the power of investigation is a statutory one and ordinarily except for some exceptional situations, no interference there with by any Court is permissible, in the considered opinion of this Court. Moreover, the Investigating Officer may exercise his statutory power of further investigation in several situations, as for example, new fact come to his notice. Also that, the additional evidence collected during investigation can be produced by the Police Officer even after submission of charge sheet.
29.Besides these, the concerned Court or the Superior Court can direct further investigation in a given case, if the investigation is found to be tainted or unfair or otherwise in the interest of Justice.
30.It cannot be gainsaid that a Charge Sheet is a Final Report within the meaning of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In law, it is filed to enable the concerned Court to apply its mind as to whether cognizance of the offence thereupon should be taken or not. The basic purpose for submission of a Police Report is to find out whether any offence appears to have been committed and if so, by whom. In a given case, an Accused would not have been arrested, since the investigation against him may not be completed. Even if the Investigating Officer finds adequate evidence against an absconding Accused, the law does not enjoin that the filing of the Charge Sheet would await the arrest of the Accused.
31.At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. purports to be an opinion of the Investigating Officer and so far he is concerned, he was able to obtain sufficient material for the trial of the Accused by the Court. The report is completed if its accompanied with all documents and statement of witnesses as required by Section 175(5) Cr.P.C., as opined by this Court. Further, it is not essential that all the details of the offence must be stated. Really speaking, the details of the offence are required to be established to bring home the guilt of the Accused at a later point of time viz., during the course of the main case, by letting in acceptable oral and documentary evidence as the case may be.
32.In effect, the result of the investigation under Chapter XXII Cr.P.C. is a conclusion which an Investigating Officer draws based on materials gathered/collected during investigation. Such opinion/ conclusion can only form the basis of competent Court to take cognizance in terms of Cr.P.C. and to proceed with the case for trial where the material gathered during investigation are to be transformed into legal evidence.
33.It cannot be gainsaid that the concerned individuals who are Accused of offences would reasonably and legitimately anticipate that the cases against them ought to be investigated as quickly as possible so that they may know that they are being charged with. No wonder, speedy, diligent investigation and charge sheeting are necessary even in the interest of prosecution, in the considered opinion of this Court.
34.That apart, when power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is exercised, a Court of Law ought not ordinarily to interfere with by directing that an investigation be made from a particular angle or by a certain agency.
35.At this juncture, this Court worth recalls and recollects the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay V. R.S.Nayak and another, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1701 at special page 1702, wherein and whereunder, it is observed as follows:
(1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Art. 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the societal interest also, does not make it any-the-less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances.
(2)Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Art.21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. That is how, this Court has understood this right an d there is no reason as to take a restricted view etc.
36.It is quite clear from the ingredients of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. that even after Charge Sheet is submitted for further investigation, if called for is not precluded.
37.As far as the present case is concerned, it is quite clear that based on the complaint of the Petitioner dated 09.01.2014, a case in Kancheepuram V & AC, Cr.No.01/AC/2014/KM under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Kancheepuram between 21.00 hours and 22.45 hours on 09.01.2014. Further, the FIR in original along with the xerox copy of the complaint was submitted to the Learned CJM/Special Judge, Chengalpattu. In view of the fact as on date, nearly 8 months have elapsed from the date of registration of FIR in Crime No.1 of 2014 on the file of the 2nd Respondent, this Court bearing in mind the interest of the complainant, societal/public interest and also taking note of the fact that Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes within its ambit the stage of investigation, enquiry and trial etc., and also this Court, by way of balancing interest on the basis of Equity, Fair Play, Justice, Good Conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the 2nd Respondent to quicken/speed up the process of conduct of the investigation in the subject matter in issue and to file a Final Report/ Charge Sheet, in terms of Criminal Procedure Code before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Chengalpattu against the concerned persons, by collecting/gathering sufficient necessary materials, as expeditiously as possible.
38.With the aforesaid directions, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
14.08.2014
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Sgl
To
1.The Director,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Greenways Road,
Chennai 600 028.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
M.VENUGOPAL,J.
Sgl
ORDER IN
Crl.O.P.No.13820 of 2014
14.08.2014