Madras High Court
M.C.Ravikumar vs The Commissioner Of Police on 11 February, 2016
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 08.01.2016 Date of Verdict : 11.02.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Crl.O.P.Nos. 22506 & 26427 of 2015 M.C.Ravikumar .. Petitioner in both petitions Vs 1. The Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic offences Wing-II, Guindy, Chennai-32. .. Respondents in Crl.O.P.22506/2015 1. The Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Guindy, Chennai-32. .. Respondents in Crl.O.P.26427/2015 Prayer in Crl OP 22506 of 2015: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to transfer the investigation in respect of the complaint of the petitioner dated 21.01.2015 on the file of the first respondent to the file of the second respondent; Prayer in Crl OP 26427 of 2015: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order, dated 19.08.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Shakespeare For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr.A.Ramesh, SC for Mr.R.Anand for Intervenor COMMON ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with the present petitions, seeking to transfer the investigation in respect of his complaint dated 21.01.2015 on the file of the first respondent to the file of the second respondent and to quash the order, dated 19.08.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent.
2. Since the issue involved in both the petitions pertains to the same subject matter, these petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
3. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the petitions, are as follows:
The petitioner lodged a complaint which was registered in CCB Crime No.193 of 2012 against one Thiru D.S.Velmurugan and five others, alleging that the accused had advanced vehicle (under Hire Purchase Arrangement) and property loans (under General Power of Attorney/Sale Agreement/Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds) in all amounting to Rs.3 Crores and induced the petitioner to part with original title deeds in respect of his property as collateral security for the loans advanced. According to the petitoner, it is practice in the trade of Hire-purchase to compel hire-purchaser to invest and joint chit promoted by the lender. This practice was adopted by the accused at the time of lending money for Hire-purchase of vehicles. It is also practice to secure blank and inchoate cheques, stamp papers, blank papers and pronotes for the amount lent by the lender for the sum advanced towards hire-plurchase of vehicles. The accused also obtained title deeds, blank cheques, blank pronotes, blank non-judicial stamp papers from the petitioner. The petitioner was induced to join 10 group chits run by the accused, which he came to know later that it was not a registered one. Between April 2006 to February 2008, the petitioner along with his wife invested a sum of Rs.86,98,000/-. It is further stated that one Mr.R.R.Vasudevan, who owned Rs.79,00,000/- to the petitioner on his persuasion due to the inducement of A1, entered into a triparte arrangement under which, the above said amount due to the petitioner was settled to and in favour of the accused under an Agreement, dated 23.5.2008. According to the petitioner, even after making payment under the Hire-purchase agreement, chits and even after receipt of Rs.79,00,000/- refused to release the title deeds nor gave No objection endorsement for transfer of ownership under hire-purchase agreement. The petitioner got issued a legal notice on 30.8.2011, calling upon all the accused to return the original title deeds and make necessary NOC endorsement in the RC book of Hire purchase vehicles and to forbear them from creating encumbrance of the mortgaged properties. The petitioner lodged a complaint with Central Crime Branch on 22.11.2011. Since no action was taken on the said complaint, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P.No.30614 of 2011 for a direction to the first respondent police to register the case based on his complaint. Subsequently, pursuant to the direction of this Court, dated 05.03.2012, the complaint lodged by the petitioner came to be registered vide FIR No.193 of 2012. However, since there was no progress in investigation, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P.No.8606 of 2013 for a direction to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, dated 29.4.2013, the investigating officer filed a closure report on 02.08.2013 stating that the matter is 'civil in nature' and a notice to that effect was served to the petitioner on 31.07.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a protest petition vide Crl.M.P.No.5358 of 2013, which was also dismissed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore vide order, dated 23.09.2013. A revision filed in Crl.R.C.No.1305 of 2013 against the said order, also came to be dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 24.10.2013. Aggrived by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal vide SLP (Crl.) No.1042 of 2014. By order, dated 14.2.2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court called upon the petitioner to deposit Rs.1.34 crores to hear the case. The said order was complied with and taking note of this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order, dated 14.7.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.8174 of 2014 in SLP No.1042 of 2014, issued notice to State and the accused in Crime No.193 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent police. Pursuant to the same, the accused and others entered appearance before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which directed the parties for mediation, but noting fructified and the case was eventually heard and disposed of by order, dated 7.01.2015 to the following effect:
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, in the event, the petitioner chooses to avail of the civil remedies, the observation of the High Court in the impugned judgment may not come in the way. The amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court may be refunded with interest if any.
4. Aggrieved over by the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding 'civil remedies' in the above said order, dated 7.1.2015, since the case pertains to unregistered chit amount, the matter was agitated and consequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order, dated 9.1.2015, modified its earlier order and passed the following order.
On the matter being mentioned, it is taken on board. The order dated 7.1.2015 is modified to the extent that paragraph 3 therein which reads as follows:
However, in the event, the petitioner chooses to avail of the civil remedies, the observation of the High Court in the impugned judgment may not come in the way. Now be read as follows:
However, in the event, the petitioner chooses to avail of the appropriate remedies, the observations of the High Court in the impugned judgment may not come in the way. Rest of the order will remain the same. Thus, the word civil remedies was modified with word appropriate remedies.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the first respondent on 21.1.2015 with a complaint against accused 1 and 6 who had induced the petitoner to invest Rs.86,98,000/- in their unregistered chit between April, 2006 and February, 2008, which was also a part of the subject matter of FIR, dated 9.4.2012 albiet one of composite issue raised therein. After sitting over the complaint for eight months and after finding that the petitioner has been cheated to the tune of Rs.86,98,000/- by the accused 1 & 6, despite recording that the materials disclose prima facie case against them, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Sections 4 and 76 of Chit Fund Act, 1982, the second respondent has advised the petitioner to approach CCB on 19.08.2015 on the pretext the nature of offence fall outside purview of economic offences wing. Aggrieved by the action of the first and second respondents, the petitoner has come forward with the present petitions, praying to quash the order, dated 19.8.2015 and to transfer the investigation to the file of the second respondent.
6. The second respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed a counter, stating that the complaint and other documents were submitted to the learned Special Plublic Prosecutor and his opinion was requested. The Special Public Prosecutor has opined as follows:
'Chits' do not come under the purview of the definition of 'deposit' as defined under Section 2(2) of TNPID Act.
However the averments made in the petition and the xerox copy of the documents enclosed with the petition prima facie reveal a case against the counter petitioners, 1. D.S.Velmurugan and 2. Gokulnath under Section 420 IPC and Sections 4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act, 1982 and that the case may be registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act, 1982 and investigated.
7. It is further stated that the Economic Offences Wing was created by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.1697/1999 dated 24.12.1999 as a Special Wing, specifically to deal with cases involved in cases relating to non-banking financial companies and unincorporated financial institutions. Presently the Economic Offences Wing handles cases relating to i) All cases of Financial Institutions inclouding NBFCs whether registered or not. ii) Offences (other than civil in nature) relating to Traders and involving large scale frauds/cheating. iii) Cases relating to chit fund frauds of large scale (other than those covered by Chit Funds Act). iv) Organised Job racketeering by travel and other agencies involving large scale funds. v) Cases involving large scale frauds/cheating in violation of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. vi) Cases of organised and technical advanced, serious financial frauds of large scale. Viii) Investments, shares and time shares etc. Viii) Other incorporated unincorporated bodies who collect money in large scale from public in any form namely promising return of money or materials. ix) Financial frauds involving money laundering in large scale. x) All other cases referred to Economic Offences Wing by Government and DGP from time to time.
8. Therefore, since the complaint of the petitioner does not fall within the above criteria and as it was a 'one to one transaction', the petitioner was advised to approach the Central Crime Branch, Chennai City and the petition along with documents was transmitted to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City for further action. Thus, the second respondent sought for dismissal of the petition.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the accused, viz., D.S.Velmurugan and G.Gokulnath, prima facie disclosed commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC r/w 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 since the accused have cheated the petitioner to a tune of huge amount of Rs.86,98,000/- by way of maintaining unregisterd chits and after registering the case, the first respondent/Central Crime Branch without conducting the investigation properly, closed the complaint as 'civil in nature' which culminated into challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which permitted the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies and pursuant to the same, when the petitioner has availed the remedy by filing a complaint before the second respondent, there is no justification on the part of the second respondent to return the same on the ground that offence committed would fall outside their purview. He would also submit that the sole object of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 is to curb mushroom growth of financial establishments who were grabbing money from public on false promises without any obligation to refund the money and therefore, to achive the avowed object, the Government of Tamil Nadu has created Economic Offences Wing specifically to deal with the cases relating to non-banking financial companies and the case of the petitioner is relating to chit fund fraud involving huge sum, the first respondent/Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing II is the appropriate and competent to enquire and take action on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. In this regard, the learned counsel also made a detailed submission by inviting attention of this Court to the definition 'deposit' under Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 which says that the word 'deposit' means money either in one lump sum or by instalments made in the financial establishments for a fixed period of interest or return in any kind of service; and also to the word 'financial establishment' defined under Section 2(3) of the Act, which would cover the accused persons. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the instant case, the petitioner had deposited the money upon insistence of the accused in their unregistered chit, the first respondent/Economic Offences Wing-II is the competent person to investigate the case. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for setting aside the order, dated 19.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wingh-II transmitting the case to the Central Crime Branch, Chennai. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions, viz., AIR 1993 SC 2063 (M/s.Shriram Chits and Investment (P) Ltd. Versus Union of India and others); (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 612 (Cheran Holdings Pvt.Ltd. of Tamil Nadu versus Home Secretary, Govt.of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and others) and (2007) 2 MLJ 526 (Ms.S.Bagavathy versus State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Law Department, Chennai and another).
10.In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor would submit that on earlier occasion, when the petitioner lodged a complaint, it was registered by the Central Crime Branch in Crime No.193 of 2012, but after investigation, it was referred as 'civil in nature', however, the petitioner again lodged the present complaint with the second respondent/Economic Offences Wing-II with similar allegations which were already investigated and referred as 'civil in nature'. However, since the case of the petitioner would not fall within the specified economic offences exclusively dealt with by the second respondent, the impugned order, dated 19.8.2015 has been rightly passed by the second respondent, transmitting the case to the Central Crime Branch. The said order was passed only based on executive or administrative action. Such an administrative order passed by the second respondent can not be questioned under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Hence, the learned counsel would submit that the present petitions are not maintainable and they are liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in 1992 CriLJ 1235 (J.Boopalan versus Inspector of Police) and submitted that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not available to any person or to the Court to interfere with the order passed by the executive and such order is completely free from judicial control.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Economic Offences Wing was created by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.1697/1999, dated 24.12.1999 as a Special Wing, specifically to deal with the cases relating to non-banking financial companies and unincorporated financial institutions. Since the petitioner's case is 1:1 transaction, only Central Crime Branch alone is competent and Economic Offences Wing cannot investigate the matter. Further, by inviting attention of this Court to Section 45-H (bb) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, would submit that the amount alleged to have been deposited by the petitoner in a partnership firm of the accused after availing loan under hire purchase agreement, will not fall within the definition of 'deposit' , hence, the petitioner cannot seek remedy before the Economic Offences Wing.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and for the Intervenor and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the entire materials available on record.
13. As could be seen from the records, it appears that the petitioner has lodged a complaint dated 21.01.2015 before the first respondent/Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, alleging that the accused V.S.Velmurugan and G.Gokulnath had induced the petitioner to invest Rs.86,98,000/- in their unregistered chits during April 2006 to February, 2008 and cheated him without making payment of chit amount. The grievance of the petitioner is that, after receiving the complaint of the petitioner, after lapse of seven months, by order, dated 19.8.2015, the second respondent transmitted the matter to Central Crime Branch, Chennai on the ground that the case of the petitoner would not fall within the purview of economic offences wing as no offence under Section 5 of TNPID Act is made out.
14. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the order, dated 19.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police directing the petitioner to approach CCB, Chennai, which reads as under:
The complaint and other documents were submitted to Spl.P.P. Tr.Mohanmari and his opinion was requested. The Spl.P.P. Has oplined- Chits do not come under the purview of the definition of deposit as defined under Section 2(2) of TNPD Act.
However, the averments made in the petition and the xerox copy of the documents enclosed with the petition prima facie reveal a case against the counter petitioners 1. D.S.Velmurugan and 2. Gokulnath under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act, 1982.
Since the complaint relates to an offence under Section 420 IPC and since the amount alleged to have been cheated is only Rs.86,98,000/- and since the transaction is between two individuals and since no offence under Section 5 of TNPID Act is made out, the complaint does not fall within the purview of Economic Offences Wing.
Your original complaint along with the connected documents is transmitted to CCB, Chennai.
Hence you are advised to approach the CCB for further action.
15. A perusal of the above, I find that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, by relying on the opinion of the Special Public Prosecutor, has passed the order, stating that the complaint relates to an offence under Section 420 IPC and the alleged cheated amount is only Rs.86,98,000/- and the transaction is only between two individuals, no offence under Section 5 of the TNPID Act is made out and the complaint does not fall within the purview of economic offences wing. The said order, in my opinion, cannot be termed as an administrative order and only if it is passed due to administrative exigency, the same cannot be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Intervenor in the case of Boopalan versus Inspector of Police reported in 1992 CriLJ 1235, in my view, cannot be made applicable to the present case. In the said case, the petitoner therein, one J.Boopalan having found his name displayed in the notice board of the police station in the list of rowdies, filed a petition by invoking inherent jurisdiction, seeking a direction to remove his name from the list of rowdies. In such circumstances only, this Court held that the petitioner cannot invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case. The order questioned by the petitioner, in my opinion, is not an administrative order. In the instant case, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, by going through the allegations in the complaint as well as based on the opinion of the State Public Prosecutor, passed the order dated 19.08.2015. Therefore, the petition, questioning the order, dated 19.8.2015 passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, is maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
16. However, coming to the merits of the case, the second respondent has transmitted the complaint lodged by the petitioner along with connected documents to the Central Crime Branch, on the ground that no offence under Section 5 of TNPID Act was made out and the allegations made in the complaint would prima facie reveal a case against the accused under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act, 1982 which are exclusively dealt with by the Central Crime Branch.
17.Economic Offences Wing was created by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.1697/1999 dated 24.12.1999 as a Special Wing, specifically to deal with cases involved in cases relating to non-banking financial companies and unincorporated financial institutions. Presently the Economic Offences Wing handles cases relating to i) All cases of Financial Institutions inclouding NBFCs whether registered or not. ii) Offences (other than civil in nature) relating to Traders and involving large scale frauds/cheating. iii) Cases relating to chit fund frauds of large scale (other than those covered by Chit Funds Act). iv) Organised Job racketeering by travel and other agencies involving large scale funds. v) Cases involving large scale frauds/cheating in violation of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. vi) Cases of organised and technical advanced, serious financial frauds of large scale. Viii) investments, shares and time shares etc. Viii) Other incorporated unincorporated bodies who collect money in large scale from public in any form namely promising return of money or materials. ix) Financial frauds involving money laundering in large scale. x) All other cases referred to Economic Offences Wing by Government and DGP from time to time.
18. Therefore, according to the second respondent, since the complaint of the petitioner does not fall within the above criteria and as it was a 'one to one trascation' and 'Chits' do not come under the purview of the definition of 'deposit' as defined under Section 2(2) of TNPID Act, the case of the petitionere was not taken on file, but transmitted to the Central Crime Branch.
19. Admittedly, the petitioner has alleged that the accused persons have induced him to join in their unregistered chits numbering 10 and cheated him to the tune of Rs.86,98,000/-. Therefore, it is only a chit transaction.
20. The relevant provisions of the TNPID Act, 1997 are referred as hereunder:
Section 2(2) defines deposit, which means the deposit of money either in one lump sum or by instalments made with the Financial Establishment for a fixed period, for interest or for return in any kind or for any service.
Section 2(3) explains Financial Establishment, which means an individual, an association of individuals, a firm or a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956) carrying on the business of receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner, but does not include a corporation or a co-operative society owned or controlled by any State Government or the Central Government or a banking company as defined in section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Central Act X of 1949).
Section 5 is the penal provision for default in repayment of deposits and interests by the Financial Establishment.
21. The relevant provisions of the Chit Funds Act are extracted hereunder:
S.2(b). Chit means a transaction whether called chit, chit fund, chitty, kury or by any other name or under which a person enters into an agreement with a specified number of persons that every one of them shall subscribe a certain sum of money (or a certain quantity of grain instead) by way of periodical instalments over a definite period and that each such subscriber shall, in his turn, as determined by lot or by auction or by tender or in such other manner as may be specified in the chit agreement, be entitled to the prize amount.
Explanation.- A transaction is not a chit within the meaning of this clause, if in such transaction.-
(i) some alone, but not all, of the subscribers get the prize amount without any liability to pay future subscriptions ; or
(ii) all the subscribers get the chit amount by turns with a liability to pay future subscriptions :
S.64. Disputes relating to chit business- (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the management of a chit business shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute, to the Registrar for arbitration of each party thereto is one or the other of the following, namely:-
(a) a foreman, a prized subscriber or a non-prized subscriber, including a defaulting subscriber, past subscriber or a person claiming through a subscriber, or a deceased subscriber to a chit;
(b) a surety of a subscriber, past subscriber, or a deceased subscriber.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section, a dispute touching the management of a chit business shall include-
(i) a claim by or against a foreman for any debt or demand due to him from a subscriber, or due from him to subscriber, past subscriber or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased subscriber whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;
(ii) a claim by a surety for any sum or demand due to him from the principal borrower in respect of a loan by a foreman and recovered from the surety owing to the default of the principal borrower, whether such sum or demand is admitted or not ; and
(iii) a refusal or failure by a subscriber, past subscriber or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased subscriber to deliver possession to a foreman of land or any other asset resumed by him for breach of conditions of the assignment.
(2) Where any question arises as to whether any matter referred to for the award of the Registrar is a dispute or not for the purposes of sub-section (1), the same shall be decided by the Registrar whose decision thereon shall be final.
(3) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1).
Section 79 deals with the proceedings against the company for any offence committed under the Act.
Under section 80, the court not inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class, is vested with the jurisdiction to take cognizance and try an offence punishable under this Act.
22. A conjoint reading of the above provisions of both under the TNPID Act as well as the Chit Funds Act, would explicit that the chit transaction is a quite different transaction and it does not fall within the definition of 'deposit' under TNPID Act. The definitions of 'deposit' and 'chit amount' are totally different. While the 'deposit' means the deposit of money with the Financial Establishment for a fixed period for interest or for return in any kind or for any service, 'chit' means the transaction, under which a person enters into an agreement with a specified number of persons that everyone of them shall subscribe a fixed amount by way of periodical installments over a definite period and that each subscriber shall, in his turn as determined by lot or by auction or by tender or in such other manner, as may specified in the chit agreement, be entitled to the prize amount. Therefore, both the above said Acts provide for different mechanism and different terms and conditions for commencing and conducting such business and different authorities to deal with the matters in relation to the business and different Courts and different procedure to deal with the disputes arising out of such business and different appellate authorities and different period of limitation for filing such appeals. As a matter of fact, while the business of receiving deposits as defined under TNPID Act under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner is different, Section 12 of the Chit Funds Act prohibits transacting business other than chit business by a company, except with the general or special permission of the State Government.
23. Therefore, when two Acts deal with two different nature of transactions, I am of the considered view that the alleged chit transaction is the subject of the Registrar under the Chit Funds Act and the alleged act complained against the accused persons do attract only the penal provision of the Chit Funds Act and thereby the contravention of the provisions of the Chit Funds Act is cognizable by the concerned Judicial Magistrate and the offences arising out of the Chit Funds Act are out side the purview of TNPID Act and the same cannot be clubbed with the proceedings initiated for the offences under TNPID Act. Though the second respondent had stated in his counter that they are investigating the cases relating to the chit find fraud other than those covered under the Chit Funds Act, it is their categorical version that they are investigating chit fund frands of 'large scale only and they are not investigating offences relating to 'one to one chit transaction'. In the instant case, the allegations in the complaint deals only with the 'one to one chit transaction' between the petitioner and the accused persons.
24. In the light of the above, I do not find any scope to interfere with the order, dated 19.1.2015 passed by the second respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police in transmitting the case of the petitioner to the Central Crime Branch, Chennai on the ground that the case of the petitoner would not fall within the purview of Economic Offences Wing as no offence under Section 5 of TNPID Act is made out since the alleged transaction is relating only to a Chit between the petitioner and the accused on one to one basis. In such view of the matter, transferring the investigation in respect of the complaint of the petitioner from the file of the Central Crime Branch to the file of the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II does not arise. Consequently, the prayer sought for in Crl.P.No.22506 of 2015, seeking to transfer the investigation in respect of the complaint of the petitioner dated 21.01.2015 on the file of the first respondent to the file of the second respondent cannot be granted.
For the foregoing reasons, both the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.
11-02-2016
suk/ssv
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
R.SUBBIAH, J. suk/ssv
Pre delivery order in
Crl.O.P.Nos. 22506
& 26427 of 2015
11.02.2016