Madras High Court
B.Vijay vs The Additional Director General Of ... on 18 September, 2018
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.09.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1608 of 2016
B.Vijay
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Additional Director General of Police,
CB CID,
No.220, Pantheon Road,
Egmore,
Chennai 600 008. ...Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct
the respondent herein to conduct further investigation on the complaint in
Crime No.27 of 2011 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Karur and transfer
the file as C.C.No.300 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II,
Karur.
For Petitioner : Ms.AL.Ganthimathi
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulingam Bharathi, G.A.(Crl.side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent to conduct further investigation in Crime No.27 of 2011.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running an http://www.judis.nic.in Engineering College and several attempts have been made by some persons to 2 project before the General Public as if, the college is coming for sale. Therefore, a complaint was given before the police and the First Information Report was also registered on 29.08.2011 by the District Crime Branch, Karur. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the file of the CBCID, Chennai. The CBCID police have investigated the matter and also have filed a final report.
3.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the First Information Report initially contained the names of four accused persons. However, in the final report, only three of them have been made as accused and one of the accused persons in the First Information Report has now been made as a witness. The further grievance expressed by the learned Senior Counsel is that the CBCID has investigated the case only insofar as the named accused persons and no investigation was conducted to find out the real people behind the named accused persons, who are responsible for the mischief. He also contended that the petitioner ought to have been informed at the time of filing of the final report about the dropping of one of the accused persons in the final report. He further contended that originally, the First Information Report was registered for an offences under Sections 420, 468, 469 and 471 IPC r/w Section 66A IT Act and now the final report has been filed by the CBCID only for an offence under Section 420 r/w 511 IPC. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that certain offences have also been left out at the time of http://www.judis.nic.in 3 filing the final report.
4.The learned Government Advocate would submit that in this case, the final report was filed in the year 2014 and the same has been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, in C.C.No.300 of 2014. The petitioner is also aware of the same and when the case is at the stage of examination of the witnesses, a petition was filed in the year 2016 for a direction to conduct further investigation.
5.The learned Government Advocate also brought to the notice of this Court that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the respondent has explained in detail in what manner the investigation was conducted in this case and the reason for making one of the accused as an witness. The counter affidavit also states the reason as to why certain offences were also deleted at the time of filing the final report. The respondent in the course of investigation, has found that the internet protocol address furnished by the advertisement website directly correlates with that of A1, A2 and A3 in this case. There was no correlation insofar as the left out accused namely, Ragupathy.
6.The respondent police have further submitted that the investigation was conducted insofar as the CD, which is said to have contained the conversation between the accused persons and some witnesses. The CD has also been made http://www.judis.nic.in 4 as part of the investigation and the hard-copy of the transcription of the cellphone conversation has also been made part of the records in the final report. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the respondent has conducted thorough investigation in this case and has filed a final report by collecting sufficient evidence as against A1, A2 and A3. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that there is no scope for ordering any further investigation in this case.
7. This Court has carefully considered the submission made on either side.
8. The cores of the issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the CBCID has not investigated the involvement of any other persons in this case apart from the named accused in the First Information Report. That apart one of the accused persons has been dropped and he has been made as a witness in this case. Further, contention was raised to the effect that certain offences, which found part of the First Information Report, have also been omitted in the final report.
9. Investigation is within the realm of the police. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2009)4 SCC 184 following the case in M.C.Abraham Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2003)2 SCC 649, has http://www.judis.nic.in 5 categorically held that the investigation is the exclusive domain of the police and the power of the Court to interfere with the same is very limited and no direction can be given to the Investigating Officer to add a particular offence in the First Information Report or to investigate the matter in a particular manner. This position of law is very well settled now.
10. Considering the importance of the allegation raised in this case, the Director General of Police thought it fit to transfer the investigation to an independent agency like CBCID. The CBCID have conducted the investigation and have filed the final report in the year 2014. During the course of investigation, the CBCID had valid reason to drop one of the accused persons and made him as a witness in this case. The CBCID also had valid reason not to add certain offences in the final report, since according to the investigating officer, the offence of forgery is not made out under Sections 468, 469 and 479 IPC. The CD containing the conversation between the accused persons and the witnesses and also the telephone transcription have also been made part of the investigation and have been filed along with the final report. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent elaborately explained the investigation conducted by the CBCID have also the reasons for omitting one of the accused persons and dropping certain offences in the final report. This Court is not able to find any apparent mistake in the decision taken by the CBCID. Insofar as the http://www.judis.nic.in 6 submission made by the learned Senior Counsel with regard to some other persons involved in this case, the CBCID in their investigation were not able to find out any other person, who is involved in this case. Therefore, CBCID now thought it fit to present a strong case by filing final report only as against persons against whom strong materials were found by the CBCID in the course of investigation. This Court is not able to find any ground to order further investigation in this case.
11. The case is now at the stage of trial before the Court below. If during the course of enquiry or trial, the Court below is able to find materials to add any person as an accused in this case, sufficient powers are available for the Court below under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Similarly, during the course of enquiry or trial, till the passing of the final judgment in this case, if the Court finds that certain offences need to be added, the Court has sufficient powers under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the grievance that has been expressed by the learned Senior Counsel, can also be addressed before the Court below, which has sufficient power to deal with the same. For this purpose, there is no requirement to order further investigation in this case.
12. In fine, this Criminal original Petition is dismissed and the Court below is directed to proceed further with the case in accordance with law. Liberty is http://www.judis.nic.in 7 given to the petitioner to raise their grievance with regard to adding of certain offences and adding of accused persons, at appropriate stage, if there is sufficient evidence collected during the course of enquiry or trial. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to dropping of one of the accused persons as an accused, he may agitate the same before the Court below by filing a protest petition.
18.09.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rmk To
1.The Additional Director General of Police, CB CID, No.220, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 N.ANAND VENKATESH,J., rmk Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1608 of 2016 18.09.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in