Madras High Court
T.K.Hemalatha vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 22 January, 2015
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.01.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.16523 of 2014 and Crl.O.P(MD)Nos16524 of 2014 Crl.O.P(MD)No.16523 of 2014: T.K.Hemalatha ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Home Secretary, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai. 5.The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No.5-8, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi ? 110 003. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to transfer the case in Cr.No.34 of 2014 on the file of the fourth respondent Police Station, to the fifth respondent CBI to take the case or monitor the investigations. !For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R.1 to R.4 Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Special Public Prosecutor for R.5 * * * * * Crl.O.P(MD)No.16524 of 2014: K.G.Sakthimai ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Home Secretary, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai. 5.The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No.5-8, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi ? 110 003. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to transfer the case in Cr.No.37 of 2014 on the file of the fourth respondent Police Station, to the fifth respondent CBI to take the case or monitor the investigations. !For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar ^For Respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R.1 to R.4 Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Special Public Prosecutor for R.5 * * * * * :COMMON ORDER
According to the petitioners, they belong to linguistic minority and the applications were made to the District Collector, Madurai, for grant of free house site pattas as there are vast Government poramboke waste lands available in R.S.No.11/1 in Nilayoor I Bit, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District and after due enquiry, free house site pattas were also granted during January 2012. When the petitioners made attempts to construct the houses on the house sites granted to them, the people belonging to a particular caste threatened and attempted to attack them and therefore, the petitioners were not in a position to construct the houses and enjoy the free house site pattas given to them. In this regard, the complaints were also given to the jurisdictional police and they were informed that the matter is being investigated into. The District Collector, Madurai District, also directed the Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, to enquire into the matter and after enquiry, the Tahsildar found that the free house site pattas issued to the petitioners are invalid as the pattas in respect of those lands were granted to the people belonging to Scheduled Caste as early as in the year 2001 and therefore, it cannot be reclassified or reassigned to the upper caste people.
2. In this regard, the petitioners also made the complaints to the District Collector, Madurai District and they were informed that in the light of the report given by the Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, the free house site pattas granted to them are invalid and also made a promise that they will be given alternate house sites.
3. The petitioners alleged that fraud has been committed by issuing bogus pattas and they gave the complaints against the revenue officials to the third respondent in person, on 17.02.2014, followed by the representations sent through Speed Post, alleging that they have committed cognizable offences under Sections 120(b), 406 and 420 I.P.C. Since the said complaints were received and no response is forthcoming, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3793 and 3786 of 2014 were filed seeking appropriate directions to register a case on the basis of their complaints and the said Criminal Original Petitions were disposed of, on 25.03.2014, by directing the jurisdictional police to register a case, if prima facie case of commission of cognizable offence is made out. Ultimately, the fourth respondent registered the cases in Cr.No.34 of 2014 under Sections 468, 406, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C., on 05.07.2014 and in Cr.No.37 of 2014 under Sections 468, 406, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C., on 24.07.2014, respectively.
4. Further, according to the petitioners, no proper investigation has been carried out and in fact, the fourth respondent has also called the petitioners to appear on 18.08.2014 for enquiry, but he did not peruse any documents and the petitioners are under apprehension that the respondents 3 and 4 will not take any action as several revenue officials are involved with regard to the issuance of bogus pattas and therefore, they filed these petitions seeking transfer of the investigation.
5. In Crl.O.P(MD)No.16524 of 2014, the fourth respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, dated 10.11.2014, stating the action taken so far. A perusal of the counter affidavit discloses that one K.K.Ramesh had filed very many writ petitions as Public Interest Litigations exposing the cause of the public and it is further averred that the petitioner and other beneficiaries demanded the authorities to choose the lands for providing alternate sites and they insisted for the location of a particular land and in fact, they insisted that alternate house sites should be granted in S.No.13 of Nilayoor village which is classified as cart track poramboke and it cannot be granted for the use and it is highly objectionable in terms of Revenue Standing Orders.
6. It is further averred by the fourth respondent in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16524 of 2014 that the petitioner as well as other beneficiaries are being prompted by the said K.K.Ramesh to file a number of writ petitions styling as Public Interest Litigations and thereby, resorted to abuse of judicial process.
7. Ms.S.Vimala, Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the fourth respondent Police Station, who is present along with the Case Diary, would state that so far 29 witnesses have been examined and the relevant revenue documents have been collected.
8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondents 1 to 4, on instructions, would state that the investigation is proceeding on the right lines and since the investigation of the case involves examination of many witnesses and collection of documents, it may take some more time to file the final report.
9. It is the settled position of law that the investigation at the threshold cannot be transferred to CBI. In State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights reported in 2010 (2) SCALE 467, the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that the very plenitude of the power under the Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra- ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the observations of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the above cited decision, are fully applicable to the facts of the present cases.
11. This Court finds no tenable reasons to transfer the investigation of the case to the CBI and accordingly, there is no merit in these petitions.
12. Therefore, both the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. However, the fourth respondent shall take necessary urgent steps to investigate the cases and file final reports as expeditiously as possible.
Index :Yes/No 22.01.2015 Internet :Yes/No rsb To 1.The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai. 5.The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No.5-8, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi ? 110 003. 6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J. rsb Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.16523 and 16524 of 2014 22.01.2015