Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3561 (MAD)

Petitioner v. Respondent

2013-10-01

P.DEVADASS

body2013
Judgment : P. Devadass, J. 1. Dharmalingam/petitioner/third party came forward with this petition to recall the order of this Court dated 2.8.2013 passed in Crl.O.P.No.23903 of 2012. 2. Actually, this matter pertains to certain piece of property measuring about 66 cents comprised in S.No.18/4 and about 2.08 cents, comprised in S.No.17/3, situate, in Vellanur Village, in Chinglepet District. 3. On 29.08.1985, petitioner Dharmalingam executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Ramadass (1st respondent) to deal with the said property and to do certain acts. It was registered in Doc.No.560 of 1985. 4. On 13.09.2012, Ramadass complained to Inspector of Police, Tank Factory Police Station, H.V.F., Avadi, Chennai (2nd respondent) alleging that Vel Rangarajan Dr.R.Sagunthala (4th respondent) have grabbed the land. Since there was no concrete action, Ramadass filed Crl.O.P.23903 of 2012. Vel Rangarajan Dr.R.Sagunthala Family Trust intervened and denied any land grabbing. 5. On 02.08.2013, a learned Single Judge(Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Sathyanarayanan) of this Court, after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) passed the following order: "It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that though the contents of the complaint dated 13.09.2012 submitted by the petitioner to the second respondent prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence namely, land grabbing case, still the case has not been registered and therefore, he came forward to file this petition for a direction to register the F.I.R. 2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the intervener, who would submit that the intervener is in possession of the property in question and there is also a college in existence and sleeping over the matter, the defacto complainant has belatedly approached the respondents, falsely alleging that the intervener had committed the offence of land grabbing. 3. This Court, in exercise of its powers under 482 Cr.PC, cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the complaint given by the defacto complainant. However, if the jurisdictional police feels that the averments made in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence, they shall register an F.I.R. and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law and file a final report. However, if the jurisdictional police feels that the averments made in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence, they shall register an F.I.R. and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law and file a final report. The jurisdictional investigating officer shall also conduct the investigation in a fair manner as contemplated under CrPC and the police Standing Orders and in the event of holding/conducting enquiry/investigation, the intervener is at liberty to produce all the documents in support of his claim that he cannot be arrayed as accused and the duty is cast upon the Investigating Officer to take into consideration the said documents and assess and proceed with the same in accordance with law." 6. In pursuance of the orders stated supra, the Investigation Officer commenced his work. Enquired persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Enquired Ramadass and the Intervenor. He had also summoned Dharmalingam. 7. Dharmalingam protested to the criminal action initiated by Ramadass. In this regard, on 10.09.2013, he had also issued him a lawyer notice. Subsequently, on 16.09.2013, Dharmalingam cancelled the General Power given to him. 8. In the circumstances, Dharmalingam sought for recalling of the order of this Court dated 02.08.2013. 9. Mr.M.Ravindhran, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Subramani and Mariappan, Advocates for Dharmalingam / petitioner would submit that actually in the General Power Deed dated 29.08.1985, no power has been given to Ramdass to initiate criminal action. Without the knowledge and consent of the principal / Dharmalingam, his agent / Ramadass had filed a criminal complaint unnecessarily involving Dharmalingam in a criminal prosecution, when especially Dharmalingam is not interested in launching a criminal case in respect of the land, where an Educational Institution is being run. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that now the power given to Ramadass also has been cancelled on 16.09.2013. Therefore, he calls for recalling of the order dated 02.08.2013. 10. Mr.S.Thangasivan, learned counsel for the Intervenor is also of similar view. According to him, in the circumstances, Ramadass ought not to have filed a police complaint and also Crl.O.P.No.23903 of 2012 for a direction to the police to register a case against the Intervenor. Learned counsel also would submit that in the circumstances, the order of this Court dated 02.08.2013 is required to be recalled. 11. According to him, in the circumstances, Ramadass ought not to have filed a police complaint and also Crl.O.P.No.23903 of 2012 for a direction to the police to register a case against the Intervenor. Learned counsel also would submit that in the circumstances, the order of this Court dated 02.08.2013 is required to be recalled. 11. Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal, learned counsel for the 1st respondent / Ramadass in answering them would submit that the principal / Dharmalingam executed the General Power Deed dated 29.08.1985 to deal with the property. In pursuance of that, Ramadass had taken certain action. Even in the General Power Deed, it has been clearly mentioned that besides taking steps in connection with the property, obtaining of documents and patta, he can also take all further action on behalf of the principal. When the land has been trespassed by the Intervenor, Ramadass has set the criminal law in motion. In pursuance of that, now the police has taken further action. In such circumstances, request to recall the order of this Court will amount to reviewing of this Court's order dated 2.8.2013, which is impermissible. Let there not be any interference to police to carry out the orders of this Court. 12. A status report has been filed by the Investigation Officer. 13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on receipt of the orders of the Court on 29.08.2013, the Investigating Officer started his work, collected documents relating to the said land and now he is enquiring persons, who are concerned with the allegations in the complaint. 14. I have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, learned counsel for the Intervenor and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials on record. 15. The necessary facts for the disposal of this petition have been succinctly stated already. Let us not duplicate. Let us appreciate the legal as well as factual issues involved in this petition. 16. Long back, nearly 68 year ago, Hon'ble Members of the Judicial Committee of the PRIVY COUNCIL inEMPEROR vs. KHAWAZA NAZIR AHMAD (AIR 1945 PC 18), held that in this country, the process of investigation is province of the police. They have unrestricted statutory power to investigate the crime reported. They will have such power to unravel the truth or otherwise of the commission of the offences alleged. They have unrestricted statutory power to investigate the crime reported. They will have such power to unravel the truth or otherwise of the commission of the offences alleged. Interference of the Court arises, when there was no cognizable offence or no offence at all or the police acts in violation of any mandatory statutory provisions, rules and regulations, prescribed to regulate the carrying out of investigation. This position of law has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF BIHAR vs. J.A.C.SALDHANA,[ 1980 (1) SCC 554 ]. Again, this has been reaffirmed in STATE OF HARYANA vs. BHAJAN LAL, [1992 (1) Suppl. SCC 335]. This is the position of law both under the Old Code of 1898 and the New Code of 1973. 17. Police has to go about investigating the crime reported. They are statutorily empowered to do so [see Section 154 and 156(1) Cr.P.C]. They have to do this by collecting required materials.[see Section 2(h) Cr.P.C]. They have to enquire, examine persons, who are acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case / crime reported [see Section 160 & 161 Cr.P.C]. It includes collection of relevant documents also. 18. Police is also required to perform such work, when a direction has been issued by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Similarly, Constitutional Courts can also issue such directions in exercise of their prerogative power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is inherent in every High Court to do justice and undo injustice. [See: Section 482 Cr.P.C]. It can issue direction to implement the orders passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also includes the power to direct the police to register a case and enquire it when the situation so warrants. When such a direction is issued, necessarily police has to take action in accordance with law. Precisely, it could be as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, to pursue the clues, to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint. They have to collect relevant materials. It is police probe/investigation. As already stated, it is their unrestricted statutory power to do so, subject to the legal limitations, as everyone is not above the law. But, their such statutory power or work cannot be scuttled by any side wind save as stated already. This is all about the legal aspects. 19. They have to collect relevant materials. It is police probe/investigation. As already stated, it is their unrestricted statutory power to do so, subject to the legal limitations, as everyone is not above the law. But, their such statutory power or work cannot be scuttled by any side wind save as stated already. This is all about the legal aspects. 19. In the instant case, learned Single Judge, after perusing the allegations in the complaint, materials on record and after giving opportunity to the petitioner, intervenor and the prosecution in exercise of his inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directed the police to take further action in pursuance of the complaint of Ramadass dated 13.09.2012, containing allegations as to commission of certain cognizable offences by the Intervenor. 20. At the penultimate part of his order dated 02.08.2013, the learned Single Judge also directed the Investigating Officer to take into account the views of the invervenor as well as his documents before drawing up his (police) report. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the investigation officer is on the job. He is also in the process of collection of documents and examination of concerned persons. Dharmalingam since appears to be a person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, he had also been summoned by the Investigating Officer. He can appear before him and say whatever he wish to say and produce whatever documents he wish to produce. 21. In the circumstances, the work of the Investigating Officer shall not be scuttled by interference from this Court. Further, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the learned Single Judge has passed the orders on 02.08.2013, directing the police to do some job. In the circumstances, asking the police to stop it is legally impermissible. Factually also it cannot be done as it would be reviewing of the order of a learned Single Judge having co equal jurisdiction. 22. In view of the foregoings, this miscellaneous petition fails and it is dismissed. The Investigating Officer shall go ahead with his work in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 02.08.2013 and submit his report to the concerned competent authority at an early date.