Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

However, certain depositors, who were dissatisfied with the progress of investigation, approached this Court by way of filing petitions seeking transfer of investigation from the State Police to CBI in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and 5336 of 2011.

5.2. At this juncture, it was stated by the State that along with Crime No.26 of 2009 (Paazee case), another FIR was filed relating to this case which was originally registered as a “woman missing case”, who was one of the directors of Paazee Trading and on investigation, it came to light that it was “kidnapping and extortion case” involving police officers investigating the Paazee scam. In view of the same, this Court by its order dated 19.04.2011 in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and 5336 of 2011 directed transfer https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023 of investigation of both Crime No.26 of 2009 (Paazee Case) and Crime No.3068 of 2009 (Woman Missing Case) to the CBI. CBI had taken over the woman missing case from CBCID, Vellore which was the then investigating agency and thereafter registered an FIR wherein the petitioner herein was arrayed as A6. It is pertinent to note that until CBI's FIR dated 15.06.2011, the petitioner herein was no way connected or investigated in the woman missing case until the matter was transferred and taken up by CBI.

5.15. At this juncture, the learned Senior counsel also pointed out that the character of L.W.2/Ms.Kamalavalli is to mislead Courts and investigation agencies. In the present case, a woman missing case turned into an extortion and kidnapping case, since L.W.2 had made such a statement when she was initially investigated on 14.02.2010. Moreover, she was not kidnapped and the story was concocted in her statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., dated 13.03.2010 and 23.08.2011, are merely an evasion from her duty to refund the depositors in the Paazee Trading scam and to take revenge on the police officers, who investigated her for the same.