IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:18.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN Crl.O.P.No.22017 of 2010 B.Kishin Chand .... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Secretary to Government Home Department Secretariat, Chennai-9 2.The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu State Police DGP Office Complex Mylapore, Chennai 3.Inspector of Police G3 Kilpauk Police Station Chennai-600 010 ..... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the first and second respondents to withdraw and transfer the investigation of the case in Crime No.122 of 2006, from the file of the G3 Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai and transfer to the file of CBCID Police Department. For Petitioner : Mr.I.Subramaniam Senior Counsel for M/s.P.N.Swaminathan and P.V.Rajeswati For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj G.A.(Crl.side) O R D E R Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the first and second respondents to withdraw the investigation of the case in Crime No.122 of 2006, from the file of the G3 Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai and transfer to the State CBCID Police Department. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The brief facts leading to file this petition are detailed as under: The petitioner was the owner of the properties involved in the case in crime No.122 of 2006. The case in Crime No.122 of 2006, on the file of the G3 Kilpauk Police Station has been registered based on the complaint lodged by his son one Mr.K.Vijayakumar. 3. On 25.01.2006, at about 07.00 a.m., six persons posing themselves as Income Tax Officers trespassed in to his house and conducted fake raid and under threat and coercion made the petitioner to part with Rs.35,00,000/- in cash and also jewels worth over Rs.15,00,000/-. 4. The Inspector of Police, G3 Kilpauk Police Station (third respondent herein) has merely registered the case under Section 420 I.P.C., though the offences committed by the parties is a serious one. Soon after the registration of the case, a special team was formed to investigate the crime and during the course of investigation, it came into light that one G.Subramani of Gangaikondam, Tirunelveli, a real estate broker had conspired with his school mate one Ganesan and they had engaged V.Kandaswamy, S.Pulliah, K.Madasamy and R.Prabhakaran to conduct the fake raid. 5. The petitioner also came to know through News Paper Report that the special team, which was formed for the investigation of the crime had arrested the G.Subramani and S.Pulliah in Nerkundram on 5th April and the others in Nagerkoil on 7th April 2007. Though the accused had looted Rs.35,00,000/- in cash and shared the booty, the third respondent police was able to recover only Rs.5,96,150/-. Apart from this, they had also recovered one necklace and some of the rings weighing, in all, about 54 grams and those items had alone been handed over to the petitioner and none of the diamond jewellery seems to have been recovered from the accused persons. 6. The petitioner was put to understand that after the initial action, no progress whatsoever has been made in the investigation by the third respondent police. The third respondent police has also not evinced efforts to investigate the case and recover the remaining properties. Despite the fact that material evidence about the accused are available, the third respondent has been investigating the crime leisurely and in a humdrum manner. Even inspite of several reminders from the petitioner personally, requesting the third respondent to gear up the investigation in an effective manner, the third respondent police seems to be totally reluctant to probe the case further. 7. The petitioner was also put to understand that the status of the case is shown to have been detected in the Police Station Statistics Board. The petitioner had also sent a representation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 21.07.2010 to the Commissioner of Police by speed post on 28.07.2010 to take necessary further action to bring the culprits to books, but the same evoked no response. Hence, it has become necessary for the petitioner to come forward with this petition to withdraw the case in Crime No.122 of 2006 from the file of the third respondent police and transfer to the Crime Branch CID Department functioning under the control of City Commissioner. 8. Heard both sides. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the first information report in the case in Crime No.122 of 2006, serious offence of dacoity and robbery has been shown as a case of simple cheating. He has also submitted that the accused persons, who were arrested and gone out on bail and their whereabouts are very well known to the third respondent police and with a little efforts the third respondent could have traced the remaining of the case and jewelleries robbed off from the house of the petitioner and only because of the lethargic attitude of the third respondent police, the properties, both cash and jewellery are not able to be traced by the third respondent police. 10. Further, the learned counsel has also submitted that the specific administrative rules and guidelines of the Madras City Police are that in cases where the pecuniary value is exceeded Rs.5,00,000/-, the investigation officer should transfer the case to the Central Crime Branch of the city functioning under the control of the City Commissioner. He has also added that for the reasons best known to the third respondent police, these guidelines have been flouted down and that the supervisory officer of the Kilpauk Police namely the Deputy Commissioner, the Administrative Controller of the Range namely the Joint Commissioner-Central and over all controller of the city, the Commissioner ought to have been found this lapse and transferred the case to the Central Crime Branch. 11. But, they have also not done so. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for the withdrawal of the case from the file of third respondent police and transfer to CB CID. 12. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that based on the above said complaint, the then Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation and examined as nearly as ten witnesses and recorded their statements and after his transfer his successor in office had taken up the case for further investigation. He had also arrested one G.Subramani and S.Pulliah and recorded their confessional statements and based on their confession he had recovered a cash of Rs.53,640/- and another amount of Rs.21,600/- and apart from this, he had also recovered a Sony Ericsson Cell Phone from their possession and sent them to the Court for being remanded judicial custody. He had also arrested one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ganesan @ Ganesa Iyer, Kandasamy, Praba @ Prabakaran and Madasamy and recorded their confessional statements and from their possession he had also recovered a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- along with a Hero Honda Motorcycle and a sum of Rs.45,300/- from Prabakaran and another sum of Rs.19,500/- and one Nokia Cell phone from Madasamy and besides this he had also recovered a sum of Rs.10,200/- and a cell phone from Kandasamy respectively. Thereafter, they were remanded to judicial custody by the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. 13. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has also submitted that all the six accused persons were taken into police custody for a period of five days, enquired and recorded their statements and based on their statements certain Indra Vikas Patras and jewelleries and a two wheeler were also recovered and all the seized properties were sent to Court. He has also further submitted that the investigation has been completed and a draft charge sheet is made ready to be filed for the offences under Sections 451, 392, 395, 170 r/w 120(B) and 109 I.P.C. He would further submit that under these circumstances, there is no need to transfer the case in Crime No.122 of 2006 from the third respondent police station to the CB CID. 14. He would further submit that as per the police report, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is involved in this case and that if at all this Court is inclined to transfer the case from the file of the third respondent police, the case might be entrusted with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk for further investigation. 15. This Court has carefully considered the averments of the petition as well as the submissions made on behalf of both sides. 16. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- and jewelleries worth about Rs.15,00,000/- were robbed off from his house. But, according to the police report and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- alone is said to have been involved in this case. Further, the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation of the third respondent. As per the complaint, a huge amount as well as jewelleries are involved in this case. But the investigation of the third respondent police must have been fair and impartial and apart from this, the third respondent should have conducted the investigation by way of service to the society. The third respondent police should have infused confidence in the minds of the petitioner and then only he can repose faith on the functioning of the police department. 17. Having regard to these facts, this Court is inclined to entrust the case with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk for further investigation. Because, the CBCID Police Department has been over burdened with several detective works and therefore this Court is of view that the case in crime No.122 of 2006 may be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ withdrawn from the file of the third respondent police and transferred to the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk for an effective investigation. 18. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the case in Crime No.122 of 2006 is ordered to be withdrawn from the file of the third respondent viz.the Inspector of Police, G3 Kilpauk Police Station and transferred to the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk. Further, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk is also directed to take up the case and conduct a fair and proper investigation and after the completion of the investigation, he shall file a final report before the appropriate Court, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar krk To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu State Police, DGP Office Complex, Mylapore, Chennai. 3.Inspector of Police, G3 Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai-600 010. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 600 104. 1 cc To Mr.P.N.Swaminathan, Advocate, SR.19782. Crl.O.P.No.22017 of 2010 VSV(CO) RVL 18.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/