Allowed

Ramachandiran v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

Madras HC25 Sept 2023CRL OP/21540/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an aggrieved victim of alleged fund misappropriation, sought certificates containing witness and document details from a completed Vigilance detailed enquiry. The High Court held that after investigation completion, such documents must be furnished to the victim/petitioner to enable legal action, allowing the criminal original petition.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to furnish documents collected during detailed enquiry DE/54/2021/RDP/HQ to the petitioner within seven days.

Ramachandiran Vs Deputy Superintendent of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.21540 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 25.09.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.21540 of 2023

Ramachandiran

... Petitioner

-vs-

State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondent to furnish certificate copies of the all witnesses and all documents collected during detailed enquiry in DE/54/2021/RDP/HQ, dated 20.10.2021 by respondent in accordance with law.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER

¶15

The petitioner Ramachandiran is a resident of Korakkavadi Village,

¶16

Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District. Specific Allegations of mis-appropriation of funds under the Pradhan Manthiri Avas Yojana (PMAY) Scheme against

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1/6

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.21540 of 2023

¶19

Village Panchayat Secretary and Block Development Officer been made and complaint given to the respondent police about the mis-appropriation of funds. Similar complaint was also made by one Panjavarnam.

¶20

Both the complaints were not acted upon and the said Panjavarnam, moved this Court in Crl.O.P. No.17525 of 2021. In the said petition, it was reported by the Vigilance Department that a detailed enquiry been initiated and the enquiry is under progress. Recording the same, her petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.10.2021. Since the enquiry has not been completed after waiting for nearly a year, Panjavarnam again moved the High Court in Crl.O.P. No.21327 of 2022 to know about the fate of the detailed enquiry. The respondent reported that the detailed enquiry completed and the Vigilance Commission has recommended departmental action against the Panchayat President and S.R. Sankar, Block Development Officer and R. Angeswari, Village Panchayat Secretary.

¶21

This petitioner who is also similarly placed like Panjavarnam, aggrieved by the alleged act of misappropriation is now before this Court seeking the details of DE/54/2021/RDP/HQ to take further course of action as a

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Page No.2/6

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.21540 of 2023

¶25

person aggrieved being a victim.

¶26

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent referring the Vigilance Manual submitted that though detail enquiry is an open enquiry, it is desirable not to give undue publicity about the enquiry exposing the public servant and also the information ascertained during the course of investigation has to be kept confidential by referring to Section 8(4) of Right to Information Act, 2005. He has also submitted that the information collected during the process of investigation are not amenable to disclosure.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that being a victim and aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondent redressal through Court been sought and only on the direction of the Court the detailed enquiry was conducted. However, instead of prosecuting the persons who misappropriated the public fund, Vigilance Commissioner has suggested and recommended only for departmental action, which is a farce action to cover and protect the erred public servant. Therefore, being a victim, he has every right to initiate criminal prosecution as contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Page No.3/6

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.21540 of 2023

¶31

For the said purpose, the documents collected during the detailed

¶32

enquiry is required. It is neither a privilege document nor a secret document, requires non disclosure in the nations interest. The refusal to furnish documents collected during the detailed enquiry is only to protect the erred public servant and therefore submitted that the documents collected during the detailed enquiry is to be furnished.

¶33

This Court after considering the submissions and the law on the right

¶34

of victim to have the advantage of documents collected during the detailed enquiry vis-a-vis, the right of accused is of the firm view that both the victim as well as the accused are to be treated on par and whatever materials collected in the course of investigation, after completion of the investigation they are entitled for the copies.

¶35

The desirability of the Department of Vigilance and Anti-corruption as found in the Manual is only during the pendency of the investigation and not after completion of investigation. Once the investigation is completed, the documents collected are to be furnished to the accused, if he desires to get it

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/6

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.21540 of 2023

¶38

whether they proceed with prosecution or not.

¶39

Similarly, the complainant or a victim if wants to pursue his remedy in the manner known to law should also be furnished with the copies of the material collected. A public servant cannot claim any privilege or protection from disclosing documents collected during the course of investigation against him. Therefore, the petitioner seeking documents collected during the detailed enquiry registered in DE/54/2021/RDP/HQ is allowed. The respondent is directed to furnish the DE/54/2021/RDP/HQ documents to the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the order copy. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶40

25.09.2023

¶41

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No rkp

¶42

¶43

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶44

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

Page No.5/6

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.21540 of 2023

¶48

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶49

rkp

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.21540 of 2023

¶51

25.09.2023

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6/6

Ramachandiran v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandiran v. Deputy Superintendent 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

Major General a.K.Gupta Vs the Inspector of Police

Gopi @ Vedi Gopi Vs State Rep by

Hashim Shamshuddin Vs the Inspector of Police

J.Johnson Devakumar Jacob Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

M.Ponnusamy Vs Additional Superintendent of Police

R.Srinivass Rao Vs the Inspector of Police