Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1079 (MAD)

Nagarajan v. Superintendent of Police, Madurai

2015-02-23

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been moved by petitioner, praying this Court to direct the second respondent to register the case as per the complaint of the petitioner dated 25.6.2014. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a retired Line Inspector of TNEB, one Ramasamy, a retired Inspector of Police, residing at Y. Othakadai, Madurai, was his close friend and he has a son, namely Senthil, studied Diploma in Civil Engineering. As he came to understand that there were some appointments in TNEB, said Ramasamy wants to get a job, he approached the petitioner and requested him to accompany him to meet the Minister and both of them went and met one Ganaselvam, who is said to be a close associate of concerned minister’s daughter and on his instructions, Ramasamy accompanied his friend Thangam and gave Rs.7,00,000/- to his wife Ganga and on receipt of the same, Ganaselvam assured that he would get the job to the son of Ramasamy. While so, after few months, said Ganaselvam died and Ramasamy wants return of money and he demanded Mrs. Ganga, who accepted and assured that either she will return money or will get job. However, since the negotiation with Mrs. Ganga ended in vain, Ramasamy came to conclusion that he could not get back the amount from her as she is a woman of muscle and strong political background, he turned against the petitioner and alleging that he is the responsible for the entire transaction and hence, he is liable to pay the amount and threatened him with dire consequences and he along with his men, entered into the house of the petitioner and demanded him to return Rs.7,00,000/- and insisted him to execute a deed of transfer of title of the house belonging to the petitioner worth rupees thirty lakhs. Being frightened as there was a threat to his life, the petitioner approached the respondent police and lodged a complaint against said Ramasamy and others. But since all the accused are in police department, influenced the respondent police not to register any case against them, which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. An intervening petition is filed by Ramasamy, stating that petitioner is a retired Electricity Board employee and his son, Nagarathirthangani is now working in Electricity Board. But since all the accused are in police department, influenced the respondent police not to register any case against them, which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. An intervening petition is filed by Ramasamy, stating that petitioner is a retired Electricity Board employee and his son, Nagarathirthangani is now working in Electricity Board. Both of them came to the house of the petitioner and impressed him that they can get a job to his son as they are having high influence. Believing their words, Ramasamy gave Rs.7,00,000/- by selling his land as well as from and out of his retirement benefits. However, the petitioner and his son did not keep their words and did not provide any job. When Ramasamy demands for return of money, the petitioner is not giving proper response and also not returning money, by which, he learnt that he was cheated by the petitioner and his son and thereby he made a complaint to the first respondent, based on which, a case in Crime No.300 of 2014 has been registered against the petitioner and his son Nagarathirthagani under Sections 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(ii) IPC. The petitioner and his son approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail and it is pending. Without disclosing these facts, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition in order to divert the investigation initiated by the respondent police and the complaint based on which, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition for direction to register the case, is with false allegations and hence, it is prayed this Court to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record. 5. Considering note of the facts and circumstances of the case wherein, the complainant offered money for getting job through back door entry which is against public policy and the same is not maintainable, this Court, by order, dated 30.7.2014 ordered stay of the FIR suo motu. 6. It is not in dispute that already as against the petitioner, a cheating case has been registered in Crime No.300 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(ii) IPC based on the complaint lodged by the said M. Ramasamy, who filed the intervening petition. 6. It is not in dispute that already as against the petitioner, a cheating case has been registered in Crime No.300 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(ii) IPC based on the complaint lodged by the said M. Ramasamy, who filed the intervening petition. The version of said Ramasamy is that the petitioner and his son Nagathirthagani approached him at his house and made a dishonest promise to get a job for his son and after receiving huge amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from him, the petitioner and his son turned hostile to their words and thereby cheated him. In fact, a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner himself, it reveals that the petitioner has been involved in the alleged incident since he accompanied Ramasamy and according to him, Ramasamy handed over the cash to one Ganaselvam, who in turn gave the same to Thangam and asked him to hand over to Mrs. Ganga, wife of Ganaselvam. Therefore, by this, it is clear that the petitioner has been involved in the alleged incident and the true facts will come to light only during the trial of the case. Therefore, it can be reasonably presumed that in order to divert the investigation in the case registered against him, the petitioner has cleverly lodged the complaint before the respondent police, which was rightly not registered by them. Therefore, since the petitioner has not furnished any reliable information to constitute an offence much less a cognizable offence to enable the respondent police to register the case. For the reasons mentions above, this petition deserves to be dismissed. However, since the petitioner apprehends that there is threat of his life, the respondent police is directed to be vigilant on this aspect. Consequently, the interim order of stay granted by this Court, dated 30.7.2014 is hereby vacated.