Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4209 (MAD)

V. Dhanasekar v. Thiru. Karansingh

2011-09-30

M.JAICHANDREN

body2011
Judgment :- 1. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had placed before this Court a communication, dated 29.09.2011, from the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police Office, in Endt.Rc.No.Crime. II (1)/1731/98924/2011, stating that an enquiry had been conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhavaram District, on 20.09.25011 and 21.09.2011, with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner in his representation, dated 27.07.2010. A report, dated 23.09.2011, had been submitted by the enquiry officer, pursuant to the enquiry conducted by him. It has been stated that the enquiry officer had given his conclusion on the allegation levelled by the petitioner, as given below: "i) There is a dispute between the petitioner and Palani etc. in connection with the land. As both the parties approached the Civil Court and Hon'ble High Court, the police is not competent authority to finalize the title. The case in CCB Cr.No.93/10 u/s 420,468 and 471 IPC was registered on the petition preferred by one J.Palani before the Commissioner of Police, Sub Urban on 21.05.2010 and not based on the complaint dated 07.04.2010 as contended by the petitioner. The Inspector of Police, CCB further after observing all the formalities registered the case. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the case was registered in CCB in a civil natured petition is baseless. ii) The perusal of daily dairy dated 23.06.2010 of Inspector of Police, M2 PS. discloses that the Inspector of Police was on other duty during the time of arrest. Hence, the allegation of both the Inspectors, presented during the arrest is false. iii) The Hon'ble High Court, Chennai had disposed the petitions filed in W.P.No.7801/10 and 18932/10 against the petitioners. Further the perusal of remand order shows that there were no allegations against police. iv) The action was taken up CCB on the petition preferred on 21.05.2010 and not on petition preferred on 23.06.2010. The Inspector of Police, CCB has followed due procedure in the investigation. Moreover, the Judicial Magistrate who remanded the petitioner had mentioned that no allegations against police. v) The petitions sent by the petitioners were enquired and filed as false. The petitioner with intention to distract the investigation levelled false allegations. vi) There is no evidence to prove that the Inspector of Police demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribe from one Saraswathy. Moreover, the Judicial Magistrate who remanded the petitioner had mentioned that no allegations against police. v) The petitions sent by the petitioners were enquired and filed as false. The petitioner with intention to distract the investigation levelled false allegations. vi) There is no evidence to prove that the Inspector of Police demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribe from one Saraswathy. Moreover, the petitions, preferred by one Saraswathy, dated 23.06.2010 and 24.06.2010 to COP, Sub- Urban didn't mention about the alleged bribe." 2. In such circumstance, this Court is of the considered view that no further orders are necessary in this contempt petition. Hence, this contempt petition stands closed. However, it is made clear that the report of the enquiry Officer may be furnished to the petitioner, if he is entitled to the same. Thereafter, it would be open to the petitioner to move the appropriate forum or authority to seek his relief, in the manner known to law.