Madras High Court
K.R.Raviselvan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2016
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.04.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.6319 of 2016 and 6680 of 2016
K.R.Raviselvan ... Petitioner in both petitions
-vs-
State Rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
Thennilai Police Station,
Karur District.
(Crime No129 of 2012) ... Respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of
2016
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Karur District, Karur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Karur District, Karur. ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.(MD)
No.6680 of 2016
PRAYER in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6319 of 2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent police to expedite the
investigation in Crime No.129 of 2012 dated 26.09.2010 and file the Final
Report within a stipulated time as may be fixed by this Court.
Prayer Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6680 of 2016: Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to transfer the case in Crime No.129 of 2012 (originally on
the file of Thennilai Police Station) which is now pending on the file of the
2nd respondent to any other impartial investigating agency or investigating
officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Additional Deputy
Superintendent of Police.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
(in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6319 of 2016)
Mr.G.R.Swaminathan
For Mr.M.P.Senthil
(in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6680 of 2016)
For Respondents : Ms.S.Prabha
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Intervenors : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal
For Mr.A.Sivasubramanian
For intervenor
Mr.G.R.Swaminathan
For M.P.Senthil
For intervenor
(in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6319/ 2016)
:C O M M O N O R D E R
The minimum facts that are required for deciding these petitions are as follows:
2. On the complaint alleged by one Raviselvan, Thennilai Police registered a case in Crime.No.129 of 2012 on 26.09.2012 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) and 379 IPC and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act against one Bhuvaneswaran and others. On the complaint given by the said Bhuvaneswaran, the Inspector of Police, Thennilai Police Station registered a case in Crime No.130 of 2012 on 27.09.2012 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379 IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act against the said Raviselvan and others. After the registration of FIR, the said Raviselvan, the accused in Crime No.130 of 2012 filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14976 of 2012 for Anticipatory Bail. This Court while granting Anticipatory Bail to Raviselvan on 11.01.2013, transferred the cases in Crime Nos.129 and 130 of 2012, from the file of the Tennilai Police Station to the file of the District Crime Branch, Karur. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur conducted investigation in Crime No.129 of 2012 and Crime No.130 of 2012 and closed the case in Crime No.129 of 2012 as 'mistake of fact' on 28.01.2014 and filed the closure report, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur. The respondent police filed the final report in Crime No.130 of 2012 against the said Raviselvan before the same learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Karur in S.C.No.93 of 2015 and trial is pending. While so, Bhuvaneswaran, a political activist, had sought a ticket for contesting in the ensuing Tamilnadu Assembly Elections and it appears that he was given ticket on 04.04.2016 by the AIADMK party to contest from Srivaikundam Assembly Constituency.
3. On 11.04.2016, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed, on behalf of Raviselvan by Mr.Deenadhayalan, Advocate, for a direction to the Inspector of Police, Tennilai Police Station, Karur District to expedite the investigation in Crime No.129 of 2012 and file a final report within a stipulated time. This petition was numbered as Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6319 of 2016.
Even before this petition could be listed for hearing before the Court, Mr.Deenadhayalan, Advocate gave a letter to the Registry on 18.04.2016 to list Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016 under the caption for withdrawal before the Court. Based on the letter, the matter was posted under the caption for withdrawal on 20.04.2016.
4. On 20.04.2016, when this Court was about to permit Mr.Deenadhayalan, Advocate to withdraw Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016, Mr.S.R.Rajagopalan, learned counsel intervened on behalf of Bhuvaneswaran and strongly objected to the withdrawal of the petition on several grounds. Mr.S.R.Rajagopalan also represented that Raviselvan has filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6680 of 2016 before this Court through another counsel praying for transfer of the investigation in Crime No.129 of 2012. Therefore, this Court directed the Registry to put the papers relating to Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6680 of 2016 to be heard along with Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016 at 02:15pm on 20.04.2016.
5. When both the petitions Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6319 and 6680 of 2016, were taken up for hearing at 2:15pm on 20.04.2016, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel submitted that he is appearing for Raviselvan in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6680 of 2016 and made a startling submission that his client Raviselvan had not engaged Mr.Deenadhayalan, Advocate for filing Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016. Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court a commmunication dated 16.04.2016 that has been sent by registered post with acknowledgement due by his client Raviselvan to Mr.Deenadhayalan, Advocate questioning as to the basis on which he had filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016. Confronted with this, Mr.Deenadhayalan, Advocate fairly admitted that he was not directly engaged by Raviselvan and that three friends of Raviselvan engaged him and gave the Vakalath purported to have been signed and sent by Raviselvan with instructions to file an application for expediting the investigation in Crime No.129 of 2012 by the Inspector of Police, Thennilai Police Station. Mr.Deenadhayalan submitted that he bonafidely believed the friends of Raviselvan and filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016 based on the Vakalath given to him.
6. This Court compared the signature purported to be that of Raviselvan in the vakalat nama filed in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6319 of 2016 and Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6680 of 2016 and they were indeed similar and there was no reasonable grounds to infer that the signature of Raviselvan in the vakalat nama in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6319 of 2016 has been forged by any one. However, this Court gave a certified photocopy of the vakalat nama in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.6319 of 2016 and 6680 of 2016 to Mr.S.R.Rajagopalan, Mr.S.Deenadhayalan and Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, so as to given them a fair opportunity to present their objections, especially in the light of the allegations made by Raviselvan that he has not engaged Mr.Deenadhayalan, Advocate. The matter was adjourned to 21.04.2016 (today) with a direction to Raviselvan to be present before this Court.
7. Today, when the matter was called, Raviselvan, appeared before this Court and he filed an affidavit, wherein he has categorically admitted that he has signed the vakalat nama that has been filed in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6319 of 2016, but , he had not engaged Deenadhayalan, Advocate directly. Therefore, as stated above Mr.Deenadhayalan,Advocate, also admitted that he was engaged by some persons known to Raviselvan and that they had brought the Vakalatnama duly signed by Raviselvan. This issue need not detain us any further, because, Raviselvan has admitted that he has signed in the vakalat nama that was given to Mr.Deenadhayalan and therefore Mr.Deenadhayalan is absolved of all further indictments. Had Raviselvan stated otherwise, then a Police investigation to find out, who had forged his signature in the Vakalat would have become essential. This Court cautions Mr.Deenadhayalan, Advocate to be more careful in the future before accepting briefs, especially in criminal matters.
8. Under normal circumstances, this Court would have put a quietus to the whole issue by closing Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6319 of 2016 and passing orders on merits in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6680 of 2016, but for a disquieting incident brought to the notice of this Court by Mr.S.R.Rajagopalan, Advocate for Bhuvaneswaran. Mr.S.R.Rajagopalan, Advocate brought to the notice of this Court the following statement that has been planted in the media by some mischievous elements, on account of which, the AIADMK Party had withdrawn the assembly ticket that was given to Bhuvaneswaran:
?_itFz;lk; mjpKf ntl;ghsu; g[tnd!;tud; kPJs;ss bfhiy Kaw;rp tHf;fpy; cldoahf Fw;wgj;jphpif jhf;fy; bra;a ntz;Lbkd cau;ePjpkd;wk; kJiu fpis cj;jput[ fU:u; khtl;lk; nfhlhe;Jhu; Cuhl;rp kd;wj;jiytu; utpbry;tid 26/9/2012 md;W Ma[j';fshy; bfhiybtwp jhf;Fjy; elj;jpa _itFz;lk; mjpKf ntl;ghsu; g[tnd!;tud; kPJ bjd;dpiy fhty;epiyaj;jpy; Fw;w vz; 129-2012 cs;sJ/ ,jpy; 147.
149. 447. 294(gp). 324. 307. 506(2). 379 Igprp kw;Wk; gphpt[ 3d;go TNPPDL Act go g[tnd!;tud; cl;gl 5 ngh; kPJ tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ 26/09/2012 md;W nghlg;gl;l tHf;fpw;F ,d;Dk; Fw;wg;gj;jphpf;if jhf;fy;
bra;ahky; ,Ug;ggjhft[k;. clnd rk;ge;jg;gl;l egh;fs; kPJ tpiue;J Fw;wg;gj;jphpf;if bra;J. mth;fs; kPJ eltof;if vLf;f ntz;Lbkd cah;ePjpkd;wk; kJiu fpisapy;. fU:h; khtl;lk; nfhlhe;Jhh; Cuhl;rp kd;wj; jiytUk;. _itFz;lk; mjpKf ntl;ghsu; g[tnd!;tudhy; jhf;fg;gl;ljhf Twg;gLk; nf/Mh;/utpr;re;jpud; kDj;jhf;fy; bra;jhh;/ ,e;j kDit cah;ePjpkd;wk; kJiu fpis tprhuizf;F vLj;J bfhz;lJ (Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6319/2016).
Fw;w vz; 129-2012 tHf;fpd; kPJ fhty;Jiw jdpf;ftdk; brYj;jp cldoahf Fw;wg;gj;jphpf;if jhf;fy; bra;J Jhpj eltof;if nkw;bfhs;s fhty;Jiwf;F cah;ePjpkd;w kJiu fpis cj;jputpl;Ls;sJ/ Jhj;Jf;Fo khtl;lk;. _itFz;lk; mjpKf ntl;ghsu; g[tnd!;tud; kPJ cs;s tHf;if tpiutpy; tprhhpf;f cah;ePjpkd;wk; kJiu fpis nghyPrhUf;F cj;jutpl;l tprak; murpay; tl;lhuj;jpy; bgUk; gugug;ig Vw;gLj;jpa[s;sJ/ ,th; kPJ mjpKf jiyik cj;jputpd; nghpy; KGikahf cst[Jiw nghyPrhh; jPtpukhf tprhhpj;J tUtjhft[k; ,tuJ gpz;zdpfs; KGikahf tprhhpf;fg;gLk; gl;rj;jpy; gy jpLf;fpLk; jfty; btsptuf; TLk; vd;W ngrg;gLfpwJ/?
9. This Court is indeed disturbed on reading the aforesaid press statement, which proceeds on the footing that this Court had passed a final order in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016, when the fact remains that Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016 never came up for admission before the Court. Therefore, this Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Madurai City to be present in the Court at 2:15pm. Mr.Jesu Jeyapal, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Madurai City was present before this Court and he was shown the above said press note. When questioned, as to whether the Police can register an FIR and find out as to who had circulated this press note in the media, he said in the affirmative, but qualified his affirmation with a caveat that it may consume time, as details have to be obtained from the Service Providers. Bhuvaneswaran has filed an affidavit before this Court, wherein in paragraph No.6, it is stated as follows:
?6.I understand that in the name of Mr.K.R.Raviselvan a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016 was filed before this Hon'ble Bench on 11.4.2016. Immediately after the same was numbered and even when the same was not brought up for orders the petitioner was circulated. Not stopping with the same a message in the social media whatsapp and electronic media as though this Hon'ble Court had passed orders in the petition directing investigation was circulated. The following are the numbers from which the message is learnt to have been sent a) 9994429598, b) 9443872495, c) 8124644777, d) 9629295129, e) 9965828497, f)8807880088, g) 9362671595, h) 9443979240 and i) 9840111624. I further submit that the message filed as Doc No.8 in the compilation of papers was received by my brother in his number 9443256006 from a reporter whose number is 8754554307. Many reporters apart from the report number mentioned had received the message from the said persons. The same were circulated to the Press and Political Party Officials.
The copy of the message is filed as Doc.No.8 in the compilation of papers. This had resulted in my name being removed from the contestants list and being substituted.?
10. From a conspectus of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that some vested elements have used the process of Court to ensure that the ticket given to Bhuvaneswaran is withdrawn and they have also succeeded in their endeavour, but they cannot be allowed to go scot-free for having planted a misleading statement in the social media, as if this Court had passed orders in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016, when the truth is otherwise. The averments of Bhuvaneswaran in Paragraph No.6 of his affidavit, which is extracted above read with the impugned statement that has been extracted above, discloses the commission of cognizable offences, to be investigated by the Cyber Crime Cell, Madurai City Police in order to find out the persons responsible for planting and circulating the aforesaid statement.
11. Therefore, this Court directs the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Madurai City to register a Suo Moto FIR and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. With the above direction, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016 is closed.
12. Now, coming to Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6680 of 2016 that has been filed by Raviselvan to transfer the case in Crime No.129 of 2012 from the file of the District Crime Branch to any other investigating agency, it is seen that investigation in Crime No.129 of 2012 was closed as mistake of fact as early as 28.01.2014 and the closure report has also been filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, Karur on 11.03.2014.
13. Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for Raviselvan submitted that Raviselvan was not even made aware about the closure of investigation in Crime No.129 of 2012 and therefore, this Court should intervene and order fresh investigation. This submission of Mr.G.R.Swaminathan is too large a pill to swallow for the following reasons:
i) as stated above, two FIRs were registered, namely; Crime No.129 of 2012 against Buvaneshwaran on the complaint given by Raviselvan; and Crime No.130 of 2012 against Raviselvan on the complaint given by Buvaneshwaran.
The District Crime Branch conducted investigation in both the crime numbers and Crime No.129 of 2012 was closed as mistake of fact on 28.01.2014 and closure report was also filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karur on 11.03.2014. As regards Crime No.130 of 2012, the District Crime Branch filed a final report under Section 307 IPC against Raviselvan before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and the same is pending as S.C.No.93 of 2015 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karur.
ii) Raviselvan is not an unlettered peasant for him to set up a plea now that he was totally unaware of the outcome of the case in Crime No.129 of 2012. Even in the affidavit filed before this Court, he has stated that he is into business as well in agriculture. In the controversy, that is discussed above in detail as to whether who had executed the Vakalath Nama in favour of Mr.S.Deenadhayalan in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016, Raviselvan has filed an affidavit in which he has stated as follows:
?4.....Therefore, the said Thirumal, Gopinath and others approached me two weeks ago and wanted me to cooperate with them for pursuing the matter against Viswanathan, Bhuavaneswaran and other. They obtained my signature in the Vakalat, now copy of which has been given to me by this Hon'ble Court. Since the said vakalat was in the format used for Subordinate Courts they gave me fresh vakalat confined to High Court format. Immediately, I told Thirumal, Gopinath and others that if it involved filing a case in High Court, they must go only through my counsel Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocate, who alone knew the facts of the case. This vakalat copy of which now given to me was signed by me at Coimbatore approximately two weeks back. It appears that the said Thirumal, Gopinath and others have instructed Mr.Dheenadayalan Advocate to file Crl.O.P.6319 of 2016. That I have not authorized or instructed in the matter would be clear from two simple facts that appear on the face of the records i) the cause title reads as Ravichandran and not as Raviselvan, which is my correct name. The directions sought against Thennilai Police Station and not against DCB, Karur, I never came to Madurai on 11.04.2016.?
iii) From the above averments, it is clear that he knows the difference between the vakalath forms of Lower Court and High Court and that he has Mr.M.P.Senthil, an Advocate, as his adviser, all of which, go to show his in- depth knowledge of law, practice and procedure. Admittedly, he appeared before the Committal Court pursuant to the final report that was filed against him in Crime No.130 of 2012. To say that he did not make any enquires with regard to the outcome of the FIR in Crime No.129 of 2012 that was registered on his complaint against Bhuvaneswaran, defies credulity. Therefore, this Court cannot return a finding that Raviselvan was totally in dark about the outcome of Crime No.129 of 2012 from 2014 to now. He should have filed a protest petition in the year 2014 itself after the closure report was filed and RCS notice served on him by affixture on his house door in the presence of VAO. After having missed the bus, he is now taking a circuitous route by innocuously praying for transfer of investigation in Crime No.129 of 2012 feigning ignorance of the fact that the FIR in Crime No.129 of 2012 was closed as early as 2014.
In the result, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6680 of 2016 is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No liberty can be given to Raviselvan to file a protest petition in respect of Crime No.129 of 2012, which was closed as mistake of fact as early as 2014. For the sake of brevity, it is reiterated that Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6319 of 2016 is closed and Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6680 of 2016 is dismissed.
To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.
2. The Inspector of Police, Thennilai Police Station, Karur District.
3. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur District, Karur.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.