IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUR AT MADRAS Dated:- 16.04.2009 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Criminal Original Petition No.2071 of 2009 E.V.Vasavan ... Petitioner vs. 1. Dhanapalan 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kovilpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore. ... Respondent Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the 2nd respondent herein to conduct proper investigation in respect of Crime No.576 of 2008 and take suitable action expeditiously against the accused/first respondent and recover and restore Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.VMG.Ramakannan For Respondent-2: Mr.A.Saravanan, Government Advocate. O R D E R The petitioner/defacto complainant was approached by one Sathiaraj, a land broker, with an offer for sale of a valuable property in Mettupalayam, Coimbatore, and the petitioner, who had a proposal to purchase land at Coimbatore, expressed his desire and, as per the understanding, on 17.12.2008, proceeded to Coimbatore in his car after drawing a cash of Rs.25,00,000/- from his Bank Account operated with State Bank of India, Ambattur, Chennai, to meet the land owner as well as Broker Sathyaraj for payment of the advance. At Kovilpalayam Bus Stand, the petitioner met the Broker and while he was talking to him, the Inspector of Police attached to Kovilpalayam Police Station ie., main accused/first respondent herein, came https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ towards them and forcibly snatched the car key and took away the car wherein the cash of Rs.25 lakhs was kept, asking them to come to the police station in Taxi. At the police Station, R-1 threatened the petitioner to sign in blank papers else a case would be registered as if he carried unaccounted money. He further threatened that if he demands back the money, he would see to it that a false case is foisted for handling of counterfeit notes and black money. The persuasive pleadings of the petitioner turned to deaf ears and on coming to know that the broker and the Inspector of Police already conspired to rob the money brought by the petitioner, on the next day ie., on 18.12.2008, the occurrence was reported to the Superintendent of Police attached to Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Directorate (DVAC). The Superintendent, DVAC, conducted a probe and the telephonic conversation recorded brought to light the involvement of the Inspector of Police. Under such circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, DVAC, informed the D.I.G., Coimbatore, of the crime committed by the first respondent, whereupon, the DIG directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, to proceed against the Inspector of Police. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner of Police inquired the main accused and during the search conducted, Rs.4 lakhs came to be recovered from him. On physical search, Rs.99,000/- was found concealed in his under garment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Investigating Officer is none else than the superior officer under whom the accused Inspector worked. Though the case has been taken on file on 18.12.2008, two other accused involved in the case are not yet arrested and the balance money also not recovered. Further, the money which has been recovered from the main accused has not been deposited with court. The main accused came out on bail within 10 days; thereafter, a petition to cancel the bail has been filed, whereupon, he was re-arrested and, pending investigation, subsequently, he was enlarged on bail. Since the accused worked as an Inspector of Police, still he wields influence; otherwise, the balance money could have been recovered by this time and the co- accused apprehended. If the investigation is allowed to continue with the present Investigating Officer, undoubtedly, the process would not proceed in the right direction and therefore, necessary direction may be issued in the interests of justice. 3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that the Magistrate-in-charge of the court concerned refused to accept the deposit and insisted that such deposit should be made only with the jurisdiction Magistrate and since no Judicial Officer is posted in that place, the prosecution could not deposit the money; search is being conducted to secure the other accused as well as to recover the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ balance money of Rs.20 lakhs; and that several witnesses were examined, materials collected and the investigation is proceeding in a proper perspective. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and meticulously perused the materials available on record. Prima facie, there are wealth of materials to substantiate that an Inspector of Police, entrusted with the task of maintaining law and order, under the guise of conducting investigation, indulged in a heinous crime of robbery while in duty. After being satisfied about the actual involvement of the main accused, on being reported by the SP attached to DVAC, the D.I.G. swung into action and of course, deputed the present Investigating Officer to proceed with the investigation and enquiry. Though this Court, noticing the sense of alacrity and commitment with which the DIG acted, records its appreciation for him; it is heartening to note that after entrusting the task as early as on 18.12.2008 with the Investigating Officer, who, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was the superior officer of the main accused, the process in effect seems to have been lulled, for, the co-accused are still at large and the balance money not yet recovered. Sensing the potentiality of the offence said to have been committed by a police officer which would in a way affect the reputation of the police Department, in all probability, the Investigating Officer should have acted with more vigor and spirit and unfortunately, the pace at which the investigation moved so far is not satisfactory and unusually sluggish. The offence registered against R-1 is under Section 392 IPC and had investigation been done effectively, other serious offences committed by him would have come to light. Even as per the prosecution, the co-accused are the close associates of the main accused and that being so, the failure on the part of the investigating agency in apprehending the co-accused in spite of having sway over the main accused translates a different meaning, warranting this Court, in the interests of Justice, to order transfer of investigation to some other Agency. Inasmuch as the criminal activities of the accused would also entail prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act and since it is strongly felt by this Court that this is a peculiar case where the matter has to be investigated by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to forthwith transmit the Case Diary and all other connected records available with him to the Director, DVAC, who shall, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations made against the main accused/Inspector of Police (under suspension), appoint a competent officer to investigate into the allegations with a positive direction to conclude the process as expeditiously as possible. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar JI. To 1. The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Chennai. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kovilpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.V.M.G.Ramakkannan, Advocate, SR.14579. Crl.O.P. No.2071/2009. SCD(CO) RVL 29.04.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/