Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3861 (MAD)

Govindammal v. Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai

2014-10-16

P.DEVADASS

body2014
JUDGMENT P. DEVADASS, J. 1. The petitioner/defacto complainant, Govindammal dissatisfied with the way in which investigation in Cr. No. 1011 of 2014 has been conducted, wants change of Investigation Agency. 2. One Ram Kumar is son of Govindammal and Kaliappan. Ram Kumar pledged huge items of jewels in Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank, (Aavin Branch, (Ulavar Chanthai), Anna Nagar, Madurai. Thereafter, Ram Kumar disappeared from the scene. 3. In the circumstances, Kaliappan wanted to redeem the jewels from the Bank. The bank was particular about Ram Kumar. Kaliappan informed the Bank that his son went into oblivion. He was not heard for several years. The Bank was dilly-dallying. 4. In the circumstances, Ram Kumar's parents have filed O.S. No. 1191 of 2012 in the District Munsif Court, Madurai Town to declare Ramkumar is presumed to be dead and for a consequential direction to the Bank to return the jewels to them. The suit was decreed. They thought that their travails were over. But, even now, it is continuing. 5. Arming with the judgment of the District Munsif Court, Madurai Town, Govindammal approached the Bank Officials for the return of the jewels. She was returned with jewels. Later, she found part of them were bogus. In the said circumstances, she complained to Commissioner of Police, Madurai City as against Bank Manager, Manoharan and four others. Second respondent Police registered a case in Cr. No. 1011 of 2014 for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. 6. But till date, there is no fruitful action by the second respondent. Under these circumstances, she wants change of investigation agency. 7. Govindammal/petitioner has made allegations against certain Bank staff. The Investigation Officer/the second respondent is bound to take quick action and recover 20 sovereigns of jewels. 8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, except registering the F.I.R. the second respondent has done nothing. 9. In the facts and circumstances, monitoring the work of the second respondent by a certain Superior Police Officer becomes necessary. 10. In the circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madurai City is directed to monitor the investigation in Cr. No. 1011 of 2014, now being pursued by the Inspector of Police, E3, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai and ensure fair investigation including recovery of the jewels and without further delay file the final report before the concerned court with 3 months. 11. No. 1011 of 2014, now being pursued by the Inspector of Police, E3, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai and ensure fair investigation including recovery of the jewels and without further delay file the final report before the concerned court with 3 months. 11. With this direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.