Order 1. When a police misconducts, the victims faithfully approach the higher police to police the erring police. If it evokes no response, they are forced to approach the judiciary for justice as in the instant case. In this democratic set up, the law enforcing agencies enjoy enormous powers and shoulder onerous responsibilities. They need to possess tremendously high standard of honesty, integrity and professionalism. Their credibility lies in the trust and confidence that they build in the mind of the people. Every member of the force, by his conduct, should endeavour to enhance the ethical image of the force. No member should forget that he represents the entire force and any misconduct such as excess, corruption, etc., on his part may cause irreparable damage to the entire force. In the instant case, a Professor of an Engineering College, holding a doctoral degree to his credit, alleges illegal detention and false implication in a criminal case under the NDPS Act. The police say, he carried 1½ kilograms of ganja in his car, for the purpose of sale in order to become rich. If these allegations of the petitioner are true, it is certainly a matter of great concern as it involves a serious human rights violation. To attempt to explore the truth we need to have a quick look into the background facts of the case now. 2. One Mr. P.M.M. Nandagopal was running several educational institutions, including an Engineering college in Vellore District. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.26847 of 2014 Dr. T.V. Velliyangiri, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has been working in the said college as a Professor for the past four years. Mr. P.M.M. Nandagopal, died leaving behind him, three sons by name Saravana Sundar, Shankar and Mohana Krishnan. In respect of the administration of the educational institutions after the demise of Mr. P.M.M. Nandagopal, there arose dispute among his sons. It is alleged that on 26.06.2014, Mr. Saravana Sundar one of his sons was murdered. In respect of the same, a case in Crime No.89/2014 was registered by the Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station. During the course of investigation, it turned out that Mr. Mohana Krishnan (yet another son of Mr. Nandagopal) and six others were involved in the crime. 3. Saravana Sundar one of his sons was murdered. In respect of the same, a case in Crime No.89/2014 was registered by the Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station. During the course of investigation, it turned out that Mr. Mohana Krishnan (yet another son of Mr. Nandagopal) and six others were involved in the crime. 3. During the course of investigation, according to the petitioner, under the guise of interrogation, the Inspector of Police, Kandhili Police Station, frequently visited the college premises and attempted to harass him and 10 other staff members of the college. On this allegation, seeking a direction to the Inspector of Police, Kandhili Police Station, not to harass them, the petitioner and 10 other staff members had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.18980 of 2014 before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the said petition came up for hearing before this Court on 22.07.2014, it was recorded as follows:- “The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Chairman of the Institution is one of the accused in the above case and the petitioners who are associated with the educational institution are being summoned in connection with the investigation.” 4. Based on the said submission, this Court issued the following direction vide paragraph No.5 of the order: “5. If that is so, it is the duty of the petitioners to co-operate with the respondent police for enquiry. The respondent police is directed to hold investigation in accordance with the procedure laid down under law without unnecessarily harassing the petitioners and the petitioners are directed to co-operate with the investigation or enquiry as and when required in writing. This petition is accordingly ordered.” 5. One Mr. M. Mohan, Advocate, on the instructions of the petitioner, and other petitioners in whose favour the order in Crl.O.P.No.18980 of 2014 was passed, forwarded a copy of the said order along with a notice dated 04.08.2014 to the Superintendent of Police, Vellore, Vellore District, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupattur, Vellore District, The Inspector of Police, Kurusilapattu Police Station, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District. It was duly acknowledged by all of them. 6. Thereafter, according to the petitioner on 05.09.2014, he was taken into illegal custody by the Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station. In this regard, a representation was sent to all the higher authorities complaining of the said illegal detention. It was duly acknowledged by all of them. 6. Thereafter, according to the petitioner on 05.09.2014, he was taken into illegal custody by the Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station. In this regard, a representation was sent to all the higher authorities complaining of the said illegal detention. But, no action was taken on the same. It is further alleged that the petitioner was kept in illegal custody until 8.00 am on 07.09.2014. While releasing the petitioner in the morning, the Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station, had directed the petitioner to return to the police station in the evening. Accordingly, the petitioner, appeared before the Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station around 5.00 pm on 07.09.2014. But, again, he was detained illegally in custody. The petitioner, who is present in Court further orally alleges that he was taken to Kandili Police Station, Vellore Taluk Police station, Jolarpet Police Station and Thirupathur Town Police Station. In the mean while, on 10.09.2014, Mrs. Lokamithra, Director cum Secretary of Governing Council, Sri Nandanam Educational Trust, Tirupattur, Vellore District sent a complaint directly to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court complaining about the illegal detention of the petitioner by police. From the records, it is seen that the said complaint was received by the postal authority at 16.24 hours on 10.09.2014. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that on the same day, the said complaint was also sent through fax to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court. Even after that, the petitioner was not released from illegal detention. On 11.09.2014, at 10.30 am, the petitioner's wife filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur under Section 97 Cr.P.C., praying for issuance of a warrant of search to get the petitioner released from illegal detention of the police. It is further alleged that thereafter, a false case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.26847 of 2014 under Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b) & (c) of the NDPS Act alleging that the petitioner viz. Prof. T.V. Velliangiri was found moving in a car at 12 noon carrying 1 ½ kilograms of ganja for the purpose of sale. He was arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, who, in turn, remanded him to judicial custody. Later, he was released on bail by the Court on 24.09.2014 as per the order in CMP No.211/2014 in Cr.No.240/2014. He was arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, who, in turn, remanded him to judicial custody. Later, he was released on bail by the Court on 24.09.2014 as per the order in CMP No.211/2014 in Cr.No.240/2014. With the contention that the said case is a false case, he has come up with Crl.O.P.No.26847 of 2014 seeking to quash the same. 8. The petitioner's wife Mrs. Devi has filed Crl.O.P.No.26948 of 2014 seeking a direction to the first respondent to register a F.I.R., against the respondents 2 to 4 namely the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupattur Range, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kandhili Police Station, and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandhili Police Station, under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and to order investigation by the 5th respondent herein. That is how, these two petitions are before this Court for disposal. 9. When this matter came up for hearing on 10.11.2014, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. M. Maharaja made his submissions on behalf of the respondents. Having noticed the above serious allegations made against the respondents (police officials), this Court issued a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Vellore District to be present before this Court along with the records so as to explain to the Court as to the action taken on the complaints/representations made by the petitioner as well as his wife against the police officials. 10. When the case again came up for hearing on 12.11.2014 the Public Prosecutor, Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham appeared for the State and made his submissions. The then Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Dr. Vijaya Kumar was present. The present Superintendent of Police, in-charge of Vellore District Ms. J. Mutharasi was also present. Ms. J. Mutharasi, the Superintendent of Police submitted to the court that she had taken charge of the District very recently and therefore, she had no occasion to take any action on the complaint of the petitioner and his wife. Mr. Gopala Krishnan, the Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station who was also present, by referring to the case diary in Crime No.240/2014, submitted that he had secret information that the petitioner, viz. Prof. T.V. Velliangiri was smuggling ganja to the tune of 1½ kilograms in his car. Based on that information, he was lying in wait at railway bridge at Su. Pallipattu at Tirupattur District. Prof. T.V. Velliangiri was smuggling ganja to the tune of 1½ kilograms in his car. Based on that information, he was lying in wait at railway bridge at Su. Pallipattu at Tirupattur District. He further stated that at that time, the petitioner, was proceeding towards Tirupattur in his car bearing registration No. TN 23 BS 8492. The car was intercepted and after following the procedure contemplated in the NDPS Act, it was searched and it was found that in the car, ganja weiging 1,540 grams was concealed. He further stated that it was seized in the presence of two witnesses by name Mr. Murthy and Mr. Rajendran. The petitioner was arrested legally at 12.15 pm and he was brought to the police Station at 1.30 pm. Thereafter, according to him, he was transmitted to the Court for judicial remand. Thus, according to him, he has not committed any excess. He denied the allegation that he had kept the petitioner in illegal detention. 11. The learned counsel, however, referring to the complaints more particularly, the time of dispatch of the same and the petition filed under Section 97 of the Cr.P.C. would submit that very serious human rights violations have been committed by the police officials in this case and therefore, the matter should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation. According to him, the petitioner was illegally detained and then falsely implicated in the case. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation in this case was going on in the proper direction and there is no cause for transferring the investigation to some other agency. 13. During the course of proceedings on 12.11.2014, it came to light that the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vellore District one Mr. Ashok Kumar had submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police in C.No.A-178/ADSP/PEW/VLR/2014 dated 07.11.2014 to the effect that the case in Crime No.240/2014 is not a false case and according to his enquiry, he found that the petitioner was found carrying ganja for the purpose of sale in his car. With a view to afford an opportunity to him, he was directed to be present before this Court on 13.11.2014, along with the records. The matter was adjourned to 13.11.2014. 14. Today, (13.11.2014) when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. AL. Somayaji, learned Advocate General appeared for the respondents. He was assisted by Mr. With a view to afford an opportunity to him, he was directed to be present before this Court on 13.11.2014, along with the records. The matter was adjourned to 13.11.2014. 14. Today, (13.11.2014) when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. AL. Somayaji, learned Advocate General appeared for the respondents. He was assisted by Mr. S. Shanmuga Velayutham, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 15. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his submissions that very serious human rights violation have been caused to the petitioner and if the investigation is allowed to stay in the hands of the respondent police or even if it is transferred to any other Police Officer of State Service, truth may not come out. He suggested that the matter should be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation in order to find out the truth. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a well reputed Professor and he is a role model to a number of students of his college. He has got doctorate degree to his credit. Simply because he approached this Court on the earlier occasion and also because, the respondent police suspected that the petitioner was supporting the Chairman of the College, who is one of the accused in the case in Crime No.89/2014, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel would further submit that it is highly unbelievable that a man of the petitioner's stature would have scooped to carry ganja for the purpose of sale. 16. The learned Advocate General would submit that in view of the allegations made against the Inspector of Police, the investigation may be transferred to some other agency. But at the same time, according to him, there are several officers in the State of Tamil Nadu upon whom this Court can repose faith and entrust the case for further investigation to any one such officer. He would further submit that transferring the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation for further investigation is not at all necessary in this case. He would further suggest that if this Court finds it appropriate, one Mr. M. Sudhakar who is presently working as Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore-Rural, may be directed to take up the investigation and submit a report. He would further suggest that if this Court finds it appropriate, one Mr. M. Sudhakar who is presently working as Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore-Rural, may be directed to take up the investigation and submit a report. He further submitted that the State Government is prepared to spare his services in addition to his regular assignment. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has got every apprehension that any officer of the State Police may have some soft corner for the police officers who are involved in this matter and therefore, the investigation should be entrusted only to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 18. I have considered the above submissions. 19. As I have already pointed out, the allegations made against the police officials are so serious. At the same time, I am can not conclude at this stage, that the case in Crime No.240/2014 is a false case and that the petitioner did not commit any offence under the NDPS Act. Similarly, I can not conclude at this stage that the allegations made by the petitioner and his wife against the police officers are false. I can only conclude now that the entire episode requires a through investigation by an independent agency in order to unravel the truth. The repeated complaints sent to various authorities including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court that the petitioner was kept under illegal custody from 05.09.2014 to 07.09.2014 and again, from 07.09.2014 to 11.09.2014, the order passed by this Court earlier in Crl.O.P.No.18980 of 2014 dated 22.07.2014, and the petition filed by the wife of the petitioner under Section 97 Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur, making allegations that the petitioner was illegally detained and he was falsely implicated in this case cannot be simply brushed aside. But, unfortunately, though the complaints were sent to the Superintendent of Police and other police officials, no action was taken on those complaints. The then Superintendent of Police Dr. Vijayakumar who is present in Court, would submit that he was not even aware of any of the complaints made against the police officials. This statement made by the then Superintendent of Police is really shocking. The then Superintendent of Police Dr. Vijayakumar who is present in Court, would submit that he was not even aware of any of the complaints made against the police officials. This statement made by the then Superintendent of Police is really shocking. I do not understand as to how the then Superintendent of Police could claim that he was not even aware of any of the complaints made by the petitioner, his wife and his learned counsel when they were addressed to him. This is really doubtful. 20. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ms. A. Sujatha who is present in Court would submit that she received a complaint from the wife of the petitioner herein, but she did not take any action on the same, since, allegations are made against her also. She would further submit that she was thinking of forwarding the same to the Superintendent of Police. The Additional Superintendent of Police Mr. Ashok Kumar who is present in Court would submit that he was not aware of any of the complaints given by the petitioner, his wife and his counsel. He further submitted that he was only given oral instruction by the Superintendent of Police Mrs. Mutharasi on 07.11.2014 to verify the case diary in Crime No.240/2014 and therefore, he verified the same and then submitted a report. He would also tacitly say that no complaint was forwarded to him for enquiry. Thus, according to him his report is only on the basis of the verification of the case diary and it was not a full fledged enquiry in respect of the allegations made against the police officials. 21. From the narration of these facts, it is crystal clear that though the petitioner, his wife and his counsel have sent number of complaints to the higher police officers, alleging that the petitioner, was illegally detained in custody and then he was falsely implicated in the case, no action whatsoever was taken. This indifferent attitude of these higher police officers justifies the demand for transfer of the investigation to some other agency. 22. The learned Advocate General, in all fairness at his command, submitted to the Court that he has got no objection for transferring the investigation to some other officer. He was also of the view that the investigation should not be allowed to be continued by the present Investigating Officer. 22. The learned Advocate General, in all fairness at his command, submitted to the Court that he has got no objection for transferring the investigation to some other officer. He was also of the view that the investigation should not be allowed to be continued by the present Investigating Officer. As, I have already stated, his suggestion is that the investigation may be handed over to Mr. M. Sudhakar, the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore-Rural. 23. In this regard, I may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, [2011(11)SCR 281]. That was a case where, even after filing of the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., a request was made for further investigation. It was contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that after filing of the final report, the learned Magistrate who had taken cognizance of the offence had no power to order for further investigation. While accepting the said contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after having dealt with the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., held that in such an event, even after filing of the final report and after the same has been taken cognizance of by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the High Court may order for further investigation by some other agency. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concurred with the order of the High Court in transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. In paragraph No.17 of the order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “17............ On a reading of the reasons given by the High Court, we find that the High Court was of the view that the investigating officer even of the rank of DSP was not in a position to investigate the case fairly and truthfully because senior functionaries of the State police and political leaders were to be named and political and administrative compulsions were making it difficult for the investigating team to go any further to bring home the truth...... ” 24. It was, in those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court felt that it would not be safe to entrust the investigation to the hands of a State Police Officer and accordingly, transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. ” 24. It was, in those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court felt that it would not be safe to entrust the investigation to the hands of a State Police Officer and accordingly, transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been holding the view that Central Bureau of Investigation is a special force which has been constituted to investigate the cases of grave nature and of public importance and so transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation should be done sparingly going by the absolute necessity for the same. In this case, though it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for further investigation and though there are certain allegations against some State police officials, besides the fact that the complaints have not been investigated by the higher State Police officials, I am still inclined to entrust the investigation to Mr. M. Sudhakar, Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore-Rural with the full hope and faith that he would do the investigation dispassionately and impartially and submit an appropriate report. 25. In my considered opinion, for some excess allegedly committed by a few police officials and the indifferent attitude of a few higher police officials, the entire police force cannot be undermined. The Tamil Nadu Police is known for its investigating skill and its impartiality. I am also of the view that transferring this case to CBI for investigation would only add to the workload of the CBI. Therefore, I am in a position to accept the suggestion made by the learned Advocate General to transfer the investigation to Mr. M. Sudhakar, the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore-Rural. I am hopeful that Mr. M. Sudhakar, the Superintendent of Police will investigate the entire episode throughly and expeditiously and complete it preferably before 22.12.2014. 26. In the result, the following directions are issued in these Criminal Original Petitions:- (i) The investigation of the case in Crime No.240/2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station, Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore District is withdrawn and the same is entrusted to Mr. M. Sudhakar, the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore-Rural for fresh investigation. (ii) All the complaints made by the petitioner, his wife and his counsel shall be entrusted to Mr. M. Sudhakar, the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore-Rural for fresh investigation. (ii) All the complaints made by the petitioner, his wife and his counsel shall be entrusted to Mr. M. Sudhakar for enquiry to find whether the petitioner was illegally detained as alleged by the petitioner. (iii) Mr. M. Sudhakar, Superintendent of Police shall do the investigation of the case and enquire into the complaints expeditiously and try to complete the same before 22.12.2014 and submit a status report before this Court on 22.12.2014. (iv) The Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station, Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore District is directed to hand over the case diary pertaining to the case in Crime No.240/2014 along with a copy of this order to Mr. M. Sudhakar, Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore-Rural, without delay. (v) The Government of Tamil Nadu shall spare the services of Mr. M. Sudhakar to investigate the case in Crime No.240/2014 as directed above, in addition to his regular work. (vi) The presence of the police officers who are present in Court today is dispensed with for the future hearing of this case. (vii) The stay granted earlier is hereby vacated. (viii) The Registry shall list the criminal original petitions for further hearing on 22.12.2014. Note:- (1) Registry is directed to issue free copy of this order to the Public Prosecutor. (2) Issue copy on 18.11.2014.