Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2363 (MAD)

M. Nagaraj v. Superintendent of Police

2014-08-05

N.KIRUBAKARAN

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner has come before this Court seeking transfer of investigation of the complaint dated 25.06.2014 given to the respondents 2 and 3. 2. The crux of the matter is that one proposed accused Nirmala is allegedly running Sri Sakthi Social Economical Self Help Group Trust in Chinnamanur and she is availing the loan from various nationalized banks and cheated those banks. Those loans were obtained in the name of bogus self help Groups and by making use of lumpsum money cheated by the proposed accused, she built a Marriage hall at Ayyampalayam, bought a Coconut farm house at Anumanthampatti and also built a house worth about one crore at Kambum Varadharajapuram. He further submits that she has also bought a Scorpio Car. 3. Knowing all the facts, the petitioner questioned the proposed accused Nirmala not to involve in such illegal activities and stop cheating the public money lodged a complaint with the appropriate authorities. For that, the proposed accused abused the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner made a complaint to the second respondent on 25.06.2014. The said complaint has not been investigated. Therefore, the petitioner seeks transfer of the complaint from the second respondent to the third respondent. 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondents. 5. First of all, what the petitioner says must be out of jealous. He contended that he is a Social Worker. If it is so, he has to concentrate on the social work to help the people. Instead of concentrating the same, he follows up one single person and tries to make the allegations against the person. If really the said person cheated the money from the bank, the bank will not keep quiet and they will take appropriate action. When that is so, the petitioner cannot question those activities. 6. The petitioner independently got all the details of the properties of an individual and started questioning the said person on 25.06.2014. For that, the proposed accused should have lodged a complaint against the petitioner. He has got no business to question a third party, who is not a Government servant. It is contended that the proposed accused abused the petitioner. As stated it is very clear the petitioner out of jealous against the person, lodged the said complaint and it is not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected. He has got no business to question a third party, who is not a Government servant. It is contended that the proposed accused abused the petitioner. As stated it is very clear the petitioner out of jealous against the person, lodged the said complaint and it is not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected. For making unnecessary allegations against the third party and trying to make use of police force and also this Court, the petitioner should be slapped with heavy costs. However, taking a lenient view, this Court is not awarding any costs. 8. The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with the above observations.