Skip to content


M. Varadhan Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Original Petition No. 8518 of 2013
Judge
AppellantM. Varadhan
RespondentThe Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Others
Excerpt:
.....on 02.08.2011 to the commissioner of police, which was forwarded to the inspector of police, anti land grabbing team-xv, central crime branch, egmore, chennai-600 008. another complaint was also lodged by the petitioner on 30.07.2012. however, on 06.10.2012 only, case was registered in crime no.513 of 2012 for offences under sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 506(1) of the indian penal code. since investigation has not been conducted properly, the petitioner moved this court by way of crl.o.p.no.4318 of 2013 and obtained an order directing the respondent police to expedite the investigation and file final report by order dated 22.02.2013. 4. though the anticipatory bail petition filed by a-1 ragupathi was dismissed by the principal sessions judge, chennai, on 22.02.2013, no step was taken by.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Petition filed to transfer the investigation in Crime No.513 of 2012 on complaint dated 30.07.2012 pending on the file of the 4th respondent to CBCID, Chennai.)

1. The petitioner purchased 2168 sq ft vacant land from one Mr.Srinivasan, as early as in 1978 and the property is situated at No.3, Govindasamy Street, Mathialagan Nagar, Saligramam, Chennai-600 093.

2. On 29.04.2010, the petitioner executed settlement deed in respect of the above property to his 3 daughters. When things stand so, in 2010, some strangers approached the petitioner to purchase the petitioner's land and sought documents and the petitioner responded that he is not interested in selling the property. Thereafter, the petitioner faced threat from some goondas.

3. In order to grab the properties from the petitioner, based on a release deed, alleged to have been given by the legal heirs of the petitioner's vendor, one Umapathy given Power of Attorney to Ragupathy, on 11.11.2009. It also came to the knowledge of the petitioner from the information obtained under the RTI that column No.19 of the document dated 11.11.2009 contains only Grama Natham and the names of the legal heirs of the petitioner's vendor Mr.Srinivasan's wife Saraswathi has been falsely included and the said document has been created only for the purpose of grabbing the property from the petitioner. Later, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that Document No.2346/2009 is not related to the property and has been fraudulently created by the accused persons for grabbing the land and based upon the said document, the petitioner was threatened. Therefore, the petitioner lodged criminal complaint on 02.08.2011 to the Commissioner of Police, which was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Team-XV, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. Another complaint was also lodged by the Petitioner on 30.07.2012. However, On 06.10.2012 only, case was registered in Crime No.513 of 2012 for offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 506(1) of the Indian Penal code. Since investigation has not been conducted properly, the petitioner moved this court by way of Crl.O.P.No.4318 of 2013 and obtained an order directing the respondent Police to expedite the investigation and file final report by order dated 22.02.2013.

4. Though the Anticipatory Bail petition filed by A-1 Ragupathi was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, on 22.02.2013, no step was taken by the Police. Even the subsequent petitions were also dismissed. Inspite of that, no steps were taken to arrest the accused. Left with no other option, the petitioner has come before this court to transfer Crime No.513 of 2012 to the file of CBCID.

5. Heard Mr.D.Vijayababu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Rajarathinam, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

6. It is seen from the records that steps have not been taken properly by the respondent police inspite of dismissal of anticipatory bail petitions and the accused was not arrested. Pursuant to the direction issued by this court, the accused was arrested. Even thereafter, the accused was not taken to Police Custody as required to be done in respect of forgery matters as per dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 982 [MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER].

7. This court is not convinced with the investigation done by the Inspector of Police and accordingly transferred the investigation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. After that, the investigation was done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., has been filed on 13.10.2014 and the and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.6596 of 2014 dated 25.11.2014.

8. Mr.D.Vijayababu, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that from the charge sheet, it is seen that investigation has been done in such a way that a case was not made out against the accused and that there is every chance of the accused getting acquittal in the trial, and therefore, this court stayed proceedings before the trial court and thereafter the matter is taken up today for hearing.

9. Mr.R.Rajarathinam, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the petitioner is not convinced or satisfied with the charge sheet filed by the respondent and therefore, he has no objection for transferring the case for fresh investigation by CBCID.

10. It is a case of land grabbing and the accused alleged to have grabbed the properties of the petitioner and even the said offence is brought to the notice of the Police, the Police is not doing its part very efficiently, inspite of supervision by this court.

11. Many cases of land grabbing are reported every day and nobody's property is safe. Therefore, it is the duty of the police to see that the investigation is properly done and the properties of the citizens are protected. Investigation has to be done efficiently, so that the grabbers not escape from the clutches of law.

12. As the State itself has no objection for transfer, the investigation of the case is transferred to CBCID. The CBCID shall conduct fresh investigation by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and file final report within 3 months. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above observation. This court have hope that the case is properly investigated and all the materials are collected.

13. Post the matter for compliance after 4 months.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //