Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3005 (MAD)

Maruthai v. Director General of Police, Chennai

2022-08-30

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to transfer the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur to CBCID, Trichy for fair investigation to secure the ends of justice.) 1. This petition has been filed to transfer the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur to CBCID, Trichy. 2. The petitioner lodged complaint alleging that he along with his family members borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- from the City Union Bank, Vilanthai Branch, Aandimadam and the Manager of the said bank along with other accused persons conspired together and falsely created forged documents and misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,28,30,395/- without disbursing the said amount to the petitioner. On receipt of the complaint, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur registered a FIR in Crime No.3 of 2019 for the offences under Section 120B, 419, 420, 409, 424, 465, 466, 468, 477A, 506(i) of IPC. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though quash petitions and the anticipatory bail petitions filed by the accused persons were dismissed by this Court, the investigating officer failed to secure the accused and investigate the matter. Thereafter, for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, he closed the complaint as “further action dropped” and also filed closure report in Crime No.3 of 2019. In fact, the petitioner already filed petition for transfer of investigation in Crl.O.P.No.3821 of 2021 and this Court by an order dated 26.02.2021 directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within a period of three months. Therefore, the petitioner submitted detail representation before the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy and on receipt of the same, he directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, to conduct further investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019. 3.1. In the mean while, again the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, submitted report that there is no material available to conduct further investigation and closed the FIR. When there are specific allegations to attract the offences as registered by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur, as against the accused persons, for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officers, they closed the FIR as further action dropped. When there are specific allegations to attract the offences as registered by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur, as against the accused persons, for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officers, they closed the FIR as further action dropped. In fact, in the closure report, they recorded the statement of the witnesses and it clearly constitutes the offences as such, the Investigating Officer ought not to have closed the FIR. 3.2. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Inspector General of Police, Trichy directed the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District to appoint a new Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur to conduct re-investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019. Unfortunately, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur without conducting any re-investigation mechanically on the material placed on record, again closed the FIR. 3.3 In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2014(1) Supreme 737 in the case of Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat. In that case the transfer of investigation ordered by the High Court of Gujarat was challenged by the accused, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld the order passed by the High Court. He also relied upon various judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and prayed to transfer the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that after registration of the FIR, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch completed the investigation and closed the same as dropped further action. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer filed closer report on 05.06.2021 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Jayamkondan. Instead filing any protest petition to the closure report, the petitioner submitted representation before the Inspector General of Police, Trichy for re-investigation. The said request was considered and directed the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, to appoint another Investigating Officer to conduct re-investigation. Accordingly by an order dated 30.06.2021, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, was appointed by the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, for re-investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019. The Investigating Officer conducted detailed reinvestigation and again upheld the report filed by the earlier Investigating Officer. Accordingly by an order dated 30.06.2021, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, was appointed by the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, for re-investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019. The Investigating Officer conducted detailed reinvestigation and again upheld the report filed by the earlier Investigating Officer. Therefore, there is no investigation pending either on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur or on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, for transferring the same. If at all aggrieved over the closure report, the petitioner can very well approach the concerned Court by way of protest petition in the manner known to law. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this present petition. 5. Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 6. The petitioner is the complainant and he lodged complaint on the allegation that he along with his family members availed loan from the City Union Bank, Vilanthai Branh, Aandimadam, Ariyalur District. While approaching the first accused viz., the Manager of the said Bank, to avail loan, he directed the petitioner to approach second accused for submission of documents. The petitioner applied for over due loan and loan for construction of OSL building as follows :- i) Loan A/c. No.512020010016204 to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- in the name of Kavidharini Enterprises. ii) Loan A/c. No.512020010016011 to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- in the name of Srivaraha Steels. iii) Loan A/c. No.512020010015988 to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- in the name of Kavidharini Agencies iv) Loan A/c. No.501812080021212 to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in the name of M.Gowthami. However, the petitioner received only a sum of Rs.22,80,000/- out of Rs.35,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.12,20,000/- was misappropriated by the accused persons. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.1,28,30,395/- has been misappropriated by the accused persons and the petitioner was disbursed only the remaining amount out of Rs.2,10,00,000/-. 7. After registration of FIR, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur conducted detail investigation. He had examined 19 witnesses and after recording their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., found that the petitioner availed loan in the name of Sri Varaha Steels to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- and thereafter in addition to that availed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. 7. After registration of FIR, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur conducted detail investigation. He had examined 19 witnesses and after recording their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., found that the petitioner availed loan in the name of Sri Varaha Steels to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- and thereafter in addition to that availed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. Even before availing the said loan, in the year 2016, 2017 & 2018, the petitioner availed nine loans to the tune of Rs.54,40,000/-. Thereafter from the year 2017 viz., between 20.02.2017 to 23.01.2018, there was a business transactions between the petitioner and the second accused. In the said transactions, through bank account there was money transactions to the tune of Rs. 52,36,495/- to the petitioners family members account and also to the second accused account. The crux of the allegation is that without any signature of the petitioner in the loan application and the bank transaction form, they transferred the amount from the loan account. But all the transactions were happened only with the knowledge of the petitioner herein. Only on instructions of the petitioner, all the transactions have been done. Only after availing the loan, the petitioner had put up construction to the value of Rs.1,98,00,000/-. Therefore, no offence is made out as against the accused persons and closed the FIR as further action dropped. 8. The petitioner did not file any protest petition against the closure report. However, he submitted detail representation before the Inspector General of Police, Trichy, for re-investigation. The Inspector General of Police considered the request made by the petitioner and directed the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, to appoint another Investigating officer to conduct reinvestigation in Crime No.3 of 2019. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur as Investigating Officer to conduct re-investigation. As directed by the Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Superintendent of Police again examined the witnesses and on perusal of records concluded that no offence is made out as against the accused persons, since the petitioner along with his family members availed loan to the tune of Rs.2,10,00,000/- for development of their business and also for construction. They put up construction for the value of Rs.1,98,00,000/- and as such only on the instruction and knowledge of the petitioner all the transactions were happened between the bank and petitioner and his associates. 9. They put up construction for the value of Rs.1,98,00,000/- and as such only on the instruction and knowledge of the petitioner all the transactions were happened between the bank and petitioner and his associates. 9. The said closure reported dated 11.08.2021, submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Jayamkondan, Ariyalur. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are not helpful to the case on hand, since no investigation is pending on the filed of any of the Investigating Officer in Crime No.3 of 2019. That apart, if the complainant is not satisfied with the closure report submitted by the Investigating Officer, he can very well approach the concerned Court to protest the closure report in the manner known to law. 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file protest petition on the closure report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, dated 11.08.2021, in the manner known to law, if so advised. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.