Dismissed

Silver Touch India v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC12 Apr 2022WP/1363/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to direct police respondents to investigate a complaint alleging money extortion by cameramen. The Court found that the facts were already covered in existing criminal cases and a counter-complaint where parties are also accused, thus dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction to respondents to initiate investigation.

Silver Touch India Vs The Commissioner of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 25.02.2022

¶3

PRONOUNCED ON : 12.04.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

W.P.No.1363 of 2022

¶7

Silver Touch India, Rep.by its Prop. Siva Kumar Nair, ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, 132, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 7. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai - 16.

¶10

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17

¶11

4.The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,

¶12

293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai - 16.

¶13

5.Amudha,

¶14

Inspector of Police, AWPS, Teynampet, Chennai - 18. 6.Ramesh Kannan, Sub-Inspector of Police, R-11, Royal Nagar Police Station, Ramapuram, Chennai - 89. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the official respondent to take appropriate action on petitioner's complaint dated 10.11.2021 against the 5th and 6th respondent for their act in accordance with law both departmentally and also by the 4th respondent under Prevention of Corruption Act, within the time fixed by this Court.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. B. Manoharan

¶18

For Respondents : Mr. E. Raj Thilak, for R1 to R4 Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed to direct the respondents to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint dated 10.11.2021 against the 5th and 6th respondents, in accordance with law, both departmentally and also by the 4th respondent under Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner produced a film "Maranathirkku Pinbu Heaven". That project was commenced in 2016 and is yet to be released. Cameraman Devaraj has not handed over the hard disk of the film for further action. Petitioner invested a huge money for making the film and paid Rs.21 lakhs to Devaraj. Rs.15 lakhs was paid through bank and Rs.6 lakhs was paid by cash to Devaraj's wife Stella along with his brother Solomn. Since the hard disk was not returned, petitioner gave a complaint before Valasaravakkam Police Station. 6th respondent called for an enquiry, in which, Devaraj participated with his advocate. Nothing moved. Petitioner made a complaint against the 6th respondent through online. He approached the Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and thereafter, a case in Crime No.46 of 2020 was registered. Then, 5th respondent called for an enquiry on 02.01.2020. Devaraj sought time till 09.03.2020. Since petitioner paid money to Solomn, he made a complaint to the 5th respondent to include him in the FIR and a case in Crime No.105/2021 was registered. Devaraj's wife got anticipatory bail before this Court. Devaraj appeared before this Court on 19.02.2021 and admitted the receipt of money. Respondents 5 and 6 not interested in investigating the case and they planned to close the case by receiving Rs.4,50,000/-. That is Rs.3 lakhs to the petitioner and Rs.1,50,000/- to them. They took his signatures for acknowledging the receipt of money but till date, they have not paid the money. Petitioner made a complaint against respondents 5 and 6 to the respondents 1 to 4, by his representation dated 10.11.2021. Till date nothing was done on his complaint and therefore, this petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 5 and 6 in colluding with his opponents have not taken any steps to properly investigate the criminal cases registered on the basis of his complaint. On the other hand, in a complaint given by Solomn, petitioner is also shown as one of the accused. In support of his submission, the petitioner

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

produced the relevant complaints, FIR for the perusal of this Court.

¶25

In response, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaints given by the petitioner were received and FIRs have been registered. There was a compromise talk between the petitioner and the accused in the complaint. Petitioner had also received part payment of Rs.3 lakhs. The denial of receipt of Rs.3 lakhs is nothing but the blatant lie. On the basis of the complaint given by Solomn, FIR in Crime No.319/2021 was registered by Thiruchendur Police Station against the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 and certain other police men. Petitioner is in habit of giving repeated complaints. This petition is yet another attempt to scuttle the process of investigation in the pending cases. This petition has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Considered the rival submission and perused the records.

¶27

A perusal of the records shows that on the basis of the complaint dated 18.10.2019 given by the petitioner, the case in Crime No.46 of 2020 under Sections 420, 506(i) of IPC was registered against Devaraj and his wife Rita Devaraj. The letter dated 02.03.2020 shows that petitioner had given a letter to the Inspector of Police, Vallsaravakkam Police Station that he has no objection to give time to the accused till 09.03.2020 for making payment. The letter dated 24.10.2020 of the petitioner shows that Devaraj brother Solomn has paid Rs.3 lakhs, assured to return the original hard disk with footage, on or before 01.10.2021 failing which, he will pay Rs.18 lakhs on the same date. Thus, he requested the Inspector of Police to wait till 01.02.2021 for further action in Crime No.46/2020. The letter of Solomn dated 24.10.2020 also produced to show the payment of Rs.3 lakhs. It appears that petitioner had given another complaint against Solomn and on the basis of his complaint, FIR in Crime No.105/2021 for the offences under Sections 420, 506(ii) was registered at Valasaravakkam Police Station. Then, Solomn had given a complaint against the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. This complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to Trichandoor Police Station.

¶28

It is alleged in the complaint that on 23.10.2020, Solomn was participating in the marriage reception of his wife's elder brother's son. He received a call from Dinesh. He came out of reception as directed by Dinesh. He was abducted by 4 persons and forcibly taken in a tempo travellor bearing No.TN22/6874, and he was taken to Chennai. Petitioner was also one of the persons, involved in abducting the petitioner.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

Accused in this case have beaten him and threatened to kill. Petitioner said to have told Solomn that his brother Devaraj has to pay Rs.21 lakhs. If that amount is not paid he would file false case. Left with no option, Solomn arranged Rs.4,50,000/and he paid to the accused. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered in Crime No.319 of 2021 on the file of Thiruchendur Police Station for the offences under Sections 109, 120b, 294(b), 323, 341, 342, 357, 364A, 365, 383 & 506(ii) IPC against petitioner and others.

¶31

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had no reason to abduct Solomn and the case given by the Solomn and registered in Crime No.319 of 2021 is a false case.

¶32

A perusal of the aforesaid documents shows that there are complaints and counter complaints with regard to non production of hard disk by cameraman Devaraj. Petitioner had already given two complaints one against Devaraj and his wife and another complaint against his brother Soloman. Soloman, in turn, had given a complaint against the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. Petitioner alleges that respondents 5 and 6 received money from Solomn and has not paid the money to him. However, documents filed by him shows that he had received Rs.3 lakhs from Solomn. There is already a case registered in Crime No.319 of 2021 on the complaint given by Solomn against petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 with regard to the payment of Rs.4,50,000/-, by Solomn. The allegations made in this petition are covered in the complaint in Crime No.319/2021. R5 and R6 are also accused in this case. It is not necessary to take separate action on the petitioner's complaint dated 10.11.2021.

¶33

10. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶35

//True copy//

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

¶38

¶39

1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, 132, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 7.

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶41

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai - 16. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17 4.The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, 293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai - 16. +1cc to Mr.B. Manoharan, Advocate SR.No.25597 W.P.No.1363 of 2022 SKM(CO) GMY(28/04/2022)

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Silver Touch India v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Silver Touch India v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Mohan Breweries and Vs the State Bank of Hyderabad

State Rep. by Vs Tr.P.Madhesan, Male Aged

M.Manimaran Vs State Rep by

Vijaya, Age 46 Years, Vs Y. Jeyalakshmi

D.P.Uma Shankar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

A.Senthilkumar, M/42 Years Vs Hemalatha