SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
M. Mahendar Kumar – Appellant
Versus
M. Mani & Ors. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 461 OF 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5746 of 2014]
Decided on: 17-03-2015
Facts of the case:
The first respondent- de facto complainant, Mr. Mani lodged a complaint with the Sathyamangalam Police Station alleging that unknown persons had stolen jewels of the Mutt. F.I.R. was accordingly registered against unknown persons for offences under Sections 457, 380 and 394 IPC.
The de facto complainant/respondent no.1 subsequently moved the High Court of Judicature at Madras for transfer of investigation to CBCID, Chennai which was rejected.
Ultimately the case was investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch Villupuram and a chargesheet was filed on 26.01.2012 against 11 persons. The appellant is accused no.9.
According was alleged to be a receiver of stolen goods attracting Section 412 of the IPC.
The learned Magistrate issued process on 02.03.2012.
The de facto complainant, respondent no.1 moved a petition under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. which was rejected throughout up to Supreme Court.
Respondent no.1 made allegations against the first Investigating Officer of the case of malpractice and illegality during investigation. Dissatisfied by inaction on the part of Magistrate, respondent no.1 filed Crl.O.P. before the High Court which directed the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram to register a case against the former Investigating Officer. On another petition by respondent no.1 the High Court directed the CBCID, Chennai to investigate that case.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgment
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is an accused in a complaint case bearing Crime No.147 of 2009 pending in the file of learned Judicial Magistrate at Gingee, Tamil Nadu. He is aggrieved by impugned order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, ‘Cr.P.C.’) bearing Crl.O.P.No.707 of 2014 preferred by the de facto complainant, respondent no.1 herein, whereby the Crime No.147 of 2009 has been treated as pending before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu and as such transferred to the file of CBCID, Chennai for investigation.
3. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal may be noted in brief as follows. The first respondent, Mr. Mani, an assistant of Thiru Kadambapathy Thiru Madam/Mutt lodged a complaint with the Sathyamangalam Police Station alleging that unknown persons had stolen jewels of the Mutt. His complaint led to F.I.R. No.147 of 2009 registered against unknown persons for offences under Sections 457, 380 and 394 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The de facto complainant/respondent no.1 subsequently moved the High Court of Judicature at Madras for transfer of investigation to CBCID, Chennai but such petition bearing Crl.O.P.No.21269 of 2010 was rejected by the High Court on 22.02.2011. In the meantime, the investigation had been transferred to Inspector of Police, Valathi Police Station and again it was transferred by the DIG, Villupuram to Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch Villupuram who completed the investigation and filed a chargesheet on 26.01.2012 against 11 persons. The appellant is accused no.9 in P.R.C.No.4 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Tamil Nadu. According to appellant, the allegation against him is of being a receiver of stolen goods attracting Section 412 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate issued process in said P.R.C. No.4 of 2012 on 02.03.2012. The de facto complainant, respondent no.1 moved a petition under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate bearing Crl.M.P.No.3602 of 2012 and prayed for allowing further investigation into the case by CBCID. The said petition was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 29.06.2012 by holding that the de facto complainant was not competent to maintain such an application for further investigation. Against that order respondent no.1 preferred Crl. Revision Petition bearing Crl.R.C. No.1283 of 2012 before the High Court of Madras which came to be dismissed on 07.11.2012. Respondent no.1 then preferred S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2156 of 2013 against the order of the High Court dated 07.11.2012 and the same was also dismissed on 08.04.2013.
4. Respondent no.1 made allegations against the first Investigating Officer of the case Mr. N. Gajendran, Inspector of Police, Sathyamangalam Police Station before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram that he had committed malpractice and illegality during investigation of Crime No.147 of 2009. Dissatisfied by inaction on the part of Magistrate, respondent no.1 filed Crl.O.P.No.18904 of 2012 before Madras High Court in which order was passed on 13.08.2012 and the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram to register a case against the former Investigating Officer named above. This led to registering of FIR in Sathyamangalam Police Station on 18.09.2012 as Crime No.180 of 2012 under Sections 196, 206, 218, 219, 221 and 471 of the IPC against Mr. N. Gajendran. Respondent no.1 filed another Crl.O.P.No.28305 of 2012 before the High Court of Madras which was allowed on 10.12.2012 and the High Court directed the CBCID, Chennai to investigate that case.
5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances respondent no.1, after about 8 months of dismissal of Special Leave Petition on 08.04.2013, in the month of January 2014 filed the case at hand being Crl.O.P.No.7
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.