Allowed

S.Subramani v. the State, Rep.by

Madras HC6 Dec 2024CRL OP/27284/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras transferred a cheque-bouncing investigation from the local police to the CBCID for de novo probe due to alleged inaction and poor conduct by the local police. The court also directed action against responsible officers.

What did the court decide?

The respondent orders quashed; investigation to be handed over to CBCID, Tiruvannamalai; DG action directed against responsible IOs/SHOs.

S.Subramani Vs the State, Rep.by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.27284 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.12.2024

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.27284 of 2024

K.Subramani

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police Cheyyar Police Station Cheyyar Town, Thiruvannamalai District (Crime No.509 of 2015) ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.

¶11

praying direction to transfer investigation to any other investigating agency to

¶12

conduct de novo investigation in Crime No.509 of 2015 on the file of the

¶13

respondent.

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.27284 of 2024

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Neelakandan For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue

¶20

direction for transfer the investigation to any other investigating agency to

¶21

conduct de novo investigation in Crime No.509 of 2015 on the file of the

¶22

respondent.

¶23

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner lodged a complaint

¶25

with the respondent police against the accused persons stating that the accused,

¶26

in collusion had stolen the petitioner's cheque and thereafter, sent a legal notice

¶27

to him as if, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.47 lakhs from the accused for

¶28

which, the petitioner issued a post dated cheque and when it was presented for

¶29

collection, the same was dishonored. Though the petitioner was given CSR

¶30

2/8

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.27284 of 2024 No.748 of 2014, his complaint was not enquired and thereafter, based on the Court's direction, FIR in Crime No.509 of 2015 has been registered by the respondent police against the accused persons for the offence under Section 417 and 420 IPC. Even thereafter, the respondent police did not proceed with the investigation and the petitioner was not called for enquiry. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition dated 18.09.2017 under RTI Act seeking information

¶33

regarding the stage of enquiry in Crime No.509 of 2015 for which, the Additional Superintended of Police, Thiruvannamalai furnished details dated 14.10.2017 stating that the case is still at the stage of investigation. Meanwhile,

¶34

the petitioner obtained a direction to the respondent police to file charge sheet within a period of four weeks vide order dated 13.10.2017 in Crl.O.P.No.21936 of 2017. Even thereafter, there was no development. Once again the petitioner filed a petition dated 17.07.2020 under RTI Act seeking information about the stage of investigation for which, the Additional Superintended of Police,

¶35

Thiruvannamalai has furnished details stating that the case in Crime No.509 of 3/8

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.27284 of 2024 2015 was already closed as 'Mistake of Fact' in RCS No.178/2015 dated

¶38

29.12.2015 itself. However, the petitioner was not served with any referred notice till date. Therefore, the petitioner again filed a petition under RTI Act dated 13.01.2023 requesting to furnish the details of the alleged RCS No.178/2015 for which, the Additional Superintended of Police, Thiruvannamalai has furnished information dated 06.02.2023 stating that the said details submitted to the Court were not available with the respondent police. Hence, the petitioner filed another petition under RTI Act dated 24.04.2023, requesting to furnish the copy of the alleged referred charge sheet and accordingly, the final closure report was furnished to the petitioner by the Additional Superintended of Police, Thiruvannamalai District on 18.05.2023. Hence, the petitioner suspects that the respondent police in order to help the accused, have conducted a shoddy investigation and filed the referred charge sheet. Therefore, the present petition is filed for transfer of investigation.

¶39

4/8

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.27284 of 2024 4. It is seen from the records that from the very inception, the respondent

¶42

police have not properly dealt with the complaint given by the petitioner.

¶43

A reading of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent police

¶44

clearly shows that they have not conducted the investigation properly. Even

¶45

they do not know the differences between the criminal case and civil case.

¶46

They even do not know what is decree passed in the civil suit and what is conviction and sentence passed in the criminal case and this is the prevailing

¶47

situation in this State and the standard of the Investigating Officers. It is unfortunate that if any citizen approaches the police, the police dragging him

¶48

from pillar to post for one reason or other which is best known to them only.

¶49

This Court is not satisfied with the way in which the respondent police have dealt with the complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court twice and also approached the Department more than thrice to know

¶50

the status of his complaint and despite the same, he could not get a better investigation. This Court is satisfied with the relief sough for by the petitioner. 5/8

¶51

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

¶52

Crl.O.P.No.27284 of 2024

¶53

Therefore, whatever the orders passed by the respondent or steps

¶54

taken by the respondent is hereby quashed/set aside.

¶55

The respondent police is directed to hand over the original complaint

¶56

given by the petitioner, to the Director, CBCID, Tiruvannamalai forthwith and on receipt of the same, the Director, CBCID, Tiruvannamalai is directed to investigate the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioner in a fair manner

¶57

and if there is any deviation, the same will be viewed seriously. At least the CBCID should get the trust of the people and they cannot just like that play

¶58

with the complaint of the petitioner or any other citizen.

¶59

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed

¶60

of.

¶61

Before parting with this case, it is to be noted that the attitude of the

¶62

respondent police is highly contemned and also deprecated. Therefore, the

¶63

Superintended of Police, Tiruvannamalai is directed to take action against the

¶64

Investigating Officers/Station House Officers of the respondent police station, 6/8

¶65

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

¶66

Crl.O.P.No.27284 of 2024

¶67

those who were in-charge during the relevant point of time i.e. from the date of

¶68

complaint of the petitioner and till today (06.12.2024) and file action taken

¶69

report before this Court.

¶70

06.12.2024

¶71

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ksa-2

¶72

¶73

The Inspector of Police Cheyyar Police Station, Cheyyar Town, Thiruvannamalai District

¶74

The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

¶75

Copy to:

¶76

The Superintended of Police, Tiruvannamalai

¶77

The Director, CBCID, Tiruvannamalai

¶78

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

¶79

7/8

¶80

Crl.O.P.No.27284 of 2024 P.VELMURUGAN. J.

¶81

Ksa-2

¶82

Crl.O.P.No.27284 of 2024

¶83

06.12.2024

¶84

8/8

¶85

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

S.Subramani v. the State, Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Subramani v. the State, Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subramani Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Selvarasu Vs the State Rep by

Selvi Vs the State Rep by

Abdul Wahab Vs Inspector of Police

Ore Holding Ltd. Vs C.G. Holdings Ltd.

Sasikumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu