IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.23566 of 2007 Radhakrishnan .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Kancheepuram. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram. .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the first respondent police not to harass the petitioner's family members in the name of enquiry and direct the third respondent to transfer the investigation of the above said case (petition enquiry) complaint dated 20.04.2007 from the file of the first respondent police to District Crime Branch, Tiruvallore. For Petitioner : M/s. M.P.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr. R.Muniappa raj Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to direct the first respondent police not to harass the petitioner's family members in the name of enquiry and to direct the third respondent to transfer the investigation of the above said case from the file of the first respondent police to District Crime Branch, Tiruvallore. 2. The petitioner has narrated in his petition that he is residing in his department quarters and his wife, who is very innocent, was very friendly with her neighbourhood ladies. Taking advantage of her innocence, the neighbouring ladies conducted chits in her name without the knowledge of the petitioner's wife. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accounts were maintained by (1)Teresa (2) Akilambal and a few others, who swindled all the money. The said ladies grilled the petitioner's wife and got her signatures in several papers by beating her. In the said incident, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Kalpakkam Police Station on 27.03.2007. But the said ladies lodged a false complaint before the first respondent police, against the petitioner and his wife. So, they moved an anticipatory bail before this Honourable High Court in Criminal Original Petition No.11765 of 2007. When the first respondent police informed that enquiry is pending, even then, the Honourable Court granted anticipatory bail. The respondent police called the petitioner and his wife to the station and threatened them to pay the money to the said ladies. 3. The petitioner narrated the facts and stated that his wife was not involved in the chit transactions. The neighbouring ladies had not furnished any account or proper evidence that his wife is liable to pay the amount. The first respondent police called the petitioner and his wife on several occasions and asked them to sit in the police station from morning to night without any reason, and without any investigation. The petitioner and his wife had to go to hospital for taking treatment. So, they sent their uncle, one Chandrasekar, to the first respondent police station on their behalf. The respondent police ill-treated the petitioner's uncle and they forced him to pay Rs.50,000/- and threatened him that they would register a strong case against the petitioner and his family members and would arrest them. Immediately, the said Chandrasekar arranged Rs.47,000/- and paid it to the first respondent police. Because of the torture, the petitioner's uncle died on 23.05.2007. Even after the said payment of Rs.47,000/-, the respondent police are calling the petitioner and his wife in the name of enquiry. Further, they are demanding more money and are threatening them that unless they pay more money, they will register a case against the petitioner's son, who is an engineer. 4. In this connection, the petitioner sent a legal notice and moved an anticipatory bail. Further, the petitioner contended that the first respondent has been continuously harassing them. 5. The first respondent police filed a counter statement stating that originally a complaint has been preferred before the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District on 05.04.2007 by one Teresa residing at Kalpakkam Township. The said complaint was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing. As per instructions of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the respondent took up enquiry of the case. In the complaint preferred by Teresa, it came to light that the petitioner and his wife and their son are conducting unauthorised chit company and the said chit subscription amounts were not properly returned to Teresa and others. Meanwhile, the petitioner had retired from Kalpakkam Atomic Energy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and shifted his residence to Avadi without settling the amount to the subscribers even after maturity of the chit period. One Varadarajan and Deenadayalan had given assistance to the said person who had cheated. Hence, the respondent police summoned the six persons for enquiry and they came for enquiry. On 20.05.2007, the first respondent had recorded the statement of the petitioner and his wife. In their statement, they had agreed to settle the chit amount to the subscribers. On behalf of the petitioner and his wife, his relative one Chandrasekar had paid Rs.47,000/-. The petitioner Radhakrishnan executed a pronote in favour of Teresa on 11.08.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. Moreover, the petitioner has to pay a total amount of Rs.6 lakhs to the subscribers. 6. The respondent police categorically denied that he tortured the petitioner and his family members but has conducted enquiry in accordance with law. No harassment has been done by the respondent towards the petitioner and his family members. Under the circumstances, the respondents pray that there is no necessity to transfer the case to some other agency. 7. The above contents in the petition and counter statement have been perused by this Court. The Court is of the view that if the petitioner and his family members were tortured by the respondent police, they have to approach the Human Rights Commission, which is the proper forum for remedy. But this Court, after seeing the counter statement of the respondent police, is of the opinion that the respondent police had functioned well within norms prescribed and as such no discrepancy can be found. Therefore, the transfer petition is not entertained by this Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar mra To 1. The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing,Kancheepuram. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Kancheepuram. 3. The Superintendent of Police,Kancheepuram. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Crl.O.P.No.23566 of 2007 KG(CO) EM/5.11.09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/