High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
M. Nageswaran
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chennai
Crl.O.P.No.12837 of 2009
Decided on: 05-10-2009
Harassment - Criminal Procedure - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1973, Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 - Sections 406, 420 IPC, Section 7 r/w Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Clause 3 of Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1973 and Clause 25 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused No.2 in a case, sought relief from harassment by the Investigating Officer and relaxation of conditions imposed for anticipatory bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's allegations of harassment and coercion to become an approver to be probable and granted the relief sought.
Issues: Alleged harassment and coercion by the Investigating Officer, relaxation of conditions for anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted relief based on the reasonable apprehension of harassment and coercion, and the probability of the petitioner's allegations being true.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the conditions for anticipatory bail were relaxed. The Investigating Officer was directed not to harass or threaten the petitioner.
The second accused in Cr.No.1/2009 originally registered on the file of CBCID, Pudukottai, then re-registered and now pending on the file of CBCID (Organised Crime Unit II), Alandur, Guindy, Chennai as Cr.No.1/2009 has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying for an order directing the respondent, namely the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Organised Crime Unit II, Crime Branch CID, Guindy, Chennai not to harass or threaten in the course of investigating the above said case and for relaxation of the conditions imposed by this court in its order dated 03.04.2009 granting anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.4839/2009.
2. The submissions made by Mr. M. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr. I. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent were heard. The petition, affidavit filed in support of the petition, counter affidavit, typed set of papers and the documents produced by the respondent in the form of case diary file were also perused.
3. Based on the complaint of Thiru. Surjit K. Chaudhary, I.A.S., the then Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government dated 312. 2008, Thiru. N. Sugumar, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Pudukottai registered a case on the file of CBCID, Pudukottai in Cr.No.1/2009 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC along with an offence punishable under Section 7 r/w Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Clause 3 of Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1973 and Clause 25 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985. The said case was registered against five named accused and others. 1) Thiru. A. Natarajan, a wholesale fertilizer dealer having his business at Pudukottai, 2) Thiru. Nageswaran, owner of Srikanth & Nagesh firm, Chennai (the petitioner herein), 3) Thiru.Kishore Nagarur, owner of Sri Chemicals, Anna Nagar, Chennai, 4) Joint Director of Agriculture, Pudukottai and 5) Assistant Director of Agriculture (QC), Pudukottai, were the named accused persons. Apart from the said five named accused persons, the case has been registered against others also without specifying the number of such persons.
4. Initially investigation of the case was conducted by Mr. A.G.A. Rozario, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Trichy. Subsequently, the same came to be transferred to the file of CBCID (Organised Crime Unit-II), Alandur, Guindy, Chennai. Thus the matter is at present being investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Organized Crime Unit-II, Guindy, Chennai.
5. The petitioner, who figures as accused No.2 in the said case, moved a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C on the file of this court for anticipatory bail. This court, by an order dated 03.04.2009 granted him the said relief with a condition for his appearance before the Investigating Officer at all times reasonably required by such Investigating Officer for interrogation. Admittedly, the petitioner, after obtaining the said order of anticipatory bail, appeared before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and executed the necessary bail bond. It is also not in dispute that thereafter the petitioner made himself available before the present Investigating Officer as and when his presence was required. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition seeking a direction to the respondent (present Investigating Officer) not to harass the petitioner in order to coerce him to become an approver in the said case. The case is under investigation and the charge-sheet is yet to be filed.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that taking advantage of the condition imposed by this court while granting anticipatory bail making it obligatory on the part of the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer at all times required by the latter for interrogation, the petitioner was unnecessarily harassed by summoning to the office of the Investigating Officer on variou
AI
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.