Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K M NATARAJAN
M. Muthuswamy - Appellant
Versus
Special Police Establishment - Respondent
Case No : Crl.M.P. No. 4871 of 1982
Decided On : 17 August 1984
CRIMINAL LAW - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 1946 - S. 3, 5, 6 - CONSENT OF STATE GOVERNMENT - INVESTIGATION OF OFFENCES AGAINST PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS - PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY UNDER S. 340, CR.P.C. - NECESSITY - NOTICE TO ACCUSED - RIGHT OF APPEAL UNDER S. 341, CR.P.C. - INHERENT JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER S. 482, CR.P.C. - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, accused of various offences including conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and perjury, challenged the proceedings against him on the grounds that the Delhi Special Police Establishment (SPE) lacked the authority to investigate the case, that the complaint was filed without a preliminary enquiry or notice to the accused, and that the consent of the State Government was not obtained as required under S. 6 of the Delhi SPE Act.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Delhi SPE had the authority to investigate the case as the offences alleged involved financial interests of the Central Government and were specified in the notification issued under S. 3 of the Delhi SPE Act. 2. The consent of the State Government under S. 6 of the Delhi SPE Act was not required for the investigation of offences against private individuals, as the consent given by the State Government was only in respect of offences involving Central Government servants or public sector undertakings. 3. A preliminary enquiry under S. 340, Cr.P.C. was not necessary in the instant case as the Magistrate had observed that the prosecution was necessary for redressal of grievances in the interest of justice. 4. Notice to the accused was not required before filing the complaint under S. 340, Cr.P.C. 5. The petitioner had the right to appeal against the launching of the complaint under S. 341, Cr.P.C., and therefore, could not invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the Delhi SPE had the authority to investigate the case against the petitioner. 2. Whether the consent of the State Government was required for the investigation of offences against private individuals under S. 6 of the Delhi SPE Act. 3. Whether a preliminary enquiry under S. 340, Cr.P.C. was necessary before filing the complaint. 4. Whether notice to the accused was required before filing the complaint under S. 340, Cr.P.C. 5. Whether the petitioner could invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings without exercising the right of appeal under S. 341, Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Delhi SPE Act empowers the Central Government to specify offences or classes of offences to be investigated by the Delhi SPE, and the consent of the State Government is required only for the investigation of offences against private individuals. In the instant case, the offences alleged involved financial interests of the Central Government and were specified in the notification issued under S. 3 of the Delhi SPE Act, therefore, the Delhi SPE had the authority to investigate the case. 2. The consent given by the State Government under S. 6 of the Delhi SPE Act was only in respect of offences involving Central Government servants or public sector undertakings, and not for offences against private individuals. Therefore, the consent of the State Government was not required for the investigation of offences against the petitioner. 3. A preliminary enquiry under S. 340, Cr.P.C. is not necessary in all cases, and in the instant case, the Magistrate had observed that the prosecution was necessary for redressal of grievances in the interest of justice. Therefore, the absence of a preliminary enquiry did not vitiate the proceedings. 4. Notice to the accused is not required before filing a complaint under S. 340, Cr.P.C. 5. The petitioner had the right to appeal against the launching of the complaint under S. 341, Cr.P.C., and therefore, could not invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings without exercising the right of appeal.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner was dismissed.
This petition has been filed by A-1 in C.C. No. 92 of 1982 on the file of the C.J.M., Madurai, to quash the said proceedings.
2. The respondent viz, State represented by the Inspector of Police, S.P.E., C.B.I., Madras, laid chargesheet against the petitioner and five others for offences under Ss. 120-B, 193, 418, 419, 467, 471 read with 467 and 384 I.P.C. The allegations on the basis of which the above charges were made are as follows. A-1 is a practising Advocate at Usilampatti A-2 is also an Advocate, practising at Madurai, A-3 is a teacher in the R. C. Primary School, Sempatti, Usilampatti. A-4 is A-1's father-in-law. A-6 is a henchman of A-1. All are close associates. During 1977-78, Accused 1 to 6 were parties to a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank, Palace Road, Madurai, and the heirs of late Sri Sadra of Chettipatti in Usilampatti Taluk, in order to acquire the proceeds of the Bank accounts of late Sri Sadra by false personation and committing forgery.
3. Sadra worked in Malaysia, saved Rs. 1, 52, 790.30 and transferred it to Indian Overseas Bank, Main Branch, Palace Road, Madurai, investing a major portion in three fixed deposit receipts and the balance in savings bank, all in his names, and returned to his village in 1974.
4. Sadra had three elder brothers viz., Srinivasagam, Abraham and Ambrose. Srinivasagam predeceased his brother Sadra, leaving his son Gnanasigamani. Sadra had lent some amount to Ambrose and when he tried to get back the amount, he was murdered on 28th April, 1975 by Ambrose and his son Thanagaraj. Sadra died intestate, leaving Gnanasigamani, Abraham and Ambrose as his heirs.
5. One Masilamani, Clerk of the Church of South India Dioceason Office, Madurai, was having custody of the FDRs and the SB Account pass book of Sadra. He was assisting the prosecution in the matter case and using one FDR, raised a loan of Rs. 2, 000/- from one Gnanaraj and gave it to Abraham. A-3 intervened and raises Rs. 3, 000/- as loan from Rev. Fr. Alphonse to wipe off the loan incurred by Masilamani on a promote executed by Abraham. A-3 planned to acquire the proceeds of the Bank accounts of late Sadra, and he evinced keen interest on the heirs of Sadra who did not suspect A-3, A-3 managed to secure two FDRs and the SB Account pass book from Masilamani on the pretext that he would make necessary arrangements to get the proceeds to the heirs. A-3 took the heirs to some lawyers viz., Mariappan and Ponniah, in the guise of consultation. When the heirs of Sadra wanted to get back the documents from A-3, A-3 obtained a pronote in his favour for Rs. 10, 000/- from Gnanasigamani, Abraham and Ambrose, stating that he had incurred Rs. 15, 000/- as expenditure. A-3 took Ghanasigamani to A-1 at Usilampatti stating that A-1 would bear the initial expenses for getting Succession Certificate favouring the heirs of Sadra. A-1 affirmed the representation of A-3 and called upon the heirs to execute a Power of Attorney in his favour to receive the succession certificate and proceeds of the Bank documents. While Gnanasigamani and Ambrose obliged, Abraham did not. A-1 took A-2 into confidence and on the advice that power of attorney executed by two of the legal heirs is not useful, A-1, got up a bogus, faked and forged power of attorney in favour of a fictitious person by name Ambrose, son of Arulanandam of Usilampatti, purported to have been executed by the three legal heirs. A-1, in collusion with A-2, got the necessary estate duty returns filed, with the signatures purportedly affixed by the three legal heirs and obtained necessary orders from the relevant authority, all without the knowledge of the said heirs. Thereafter, A-1 obtained the three FDRs and the Bank pass book apparently after the discharge of the loan to Gnanaraj on a promises to obtain Succession Certificate from the Court at the earliest. A-2 then filed an Original Petition before the principal Sub-Court, Madurai, at the instances of A-1, and eve
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
