Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4860
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
Jeera Behgam
Versus
The Home Secretary The Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai Others
W.P.NO. 6613 OF 2011 M.P.NOS. 1 TO 4 OF 2011
Decided On :Decided on : 23-12-2011
For the Petitioner - S. Rajanikanth, Advocate.
For the Respondents - R1 to R9 - V. Subbiah, Special Government Pleader, R10 -V. Selvaraj, Senior Counsel for E. Ponnappapillai, Advocate.
The judgment established the principle that in cases involving serious allegations against police officials, an independent investigation by agencies like the CBCID may be necessary to ensure credibility and instill public confidence.
Headnote:
Jewels - Allegation of theft and police misconduct - IPC Section 380 - CBCID Investigation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged that her jewels were stolen from her sister's house and accused the tenth respondent, a police official, of forcibly taking her jewels from a bank locker. The petitioner's daughter was arrested and remanded in connection with the theft case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a prima facie case against the tenth respondent and directed the investigation to be entrusted to the CBCID, Tamil Nadu. The court also allowed the criminal case against the petitioner's daughter to proceed.
Issues: Alleged theft of jewels, police misconduct, and false implication of the petitioner's daughter in a theft case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the supporting affidavits of witnesses, discrepancies in the investigation, and previous judgments to conclude that an independent investigation by the CBCID was necessary.
Final Decision: The court directed the CBCID to investigate the allegations against the tenth respondent and allowed the criminal case against the petitioner's daughter to proceed.
1. The petitioner has three sisters namely Shaheela, Jarina and Jesima and three brothers namely S.A.Jamaludin, S.A.Samsudeen and S.A.Kamarudeen. She resides at No.4, Murahari Street, Sarathi Nagar, Saidapet West, Chennai. One of her sisters namely Shaheela resides at No.29/1, First Floor, F-2 Block, Mangai Street, Jafferkhanpet, Chennai–600 083 and her husband name is S.Jainulabudin. The petitioner and her sister Shaheela reside in the same locality and the distance between the residence of the petitioner and her sister Shaheela is about 2 kms. The petitioner has two daughters namely Sarah and Safura and one son by name Ibrahim. One of her daughters namely Sarah is employed in a private company at Bengaluru. Her another daughter Safura was residing in the house of the petitioner along with her husband. According to the petitioner, she gave some jewels belonging to her and her daughters to her sister Shaheela to be kept safely in her house.
2. The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the learned counsel on either side. It is also not in dispute that the jewels of Shaheela were stolen from her house, while the jewels given by the petitioner to Shaheela were not stolen. Her husband gave a complaint to R-10, M.G.R. Nagar Police Station on 24.07.2010 about the theft of the jewels weighing about 45 ½ sovereigns. As per the complaint, the jewels were kept in the bureau on 04.06.2010 and when the bureau was opened on 23.07.2010 to take the jewels, it was found that the jewels were missing. The jewels could have been stolen in between 04.06.2010 and 23.07.2010. Based on the said complaint, FIR was registered in Crime No.742/2010 under Section 380 IPC on the file of R-10, M.G.R.Nagar Police Station, Chennai, by the Sub-Inspector of Police by name Mr.Rajendran. Investigation was carried on by the tenth respondent namely Mr.V.Seetharaman, Inspector of Police (Crime) R-10, M.G.R. Nagar Police Station, Chennai. All the relatives of Shaheela and Jainulabudin were examined by the tenth respondent during the investigation. The petitioner and her family members were also examined by the tenth respondent on 23.09.2010.
3. It is also admitted that while the jewels of Shaheela were stolen, the jewels of the petitioner that were kept in the house of Shaheela were not stolen. After the incident of theft, Shaheela returned the jewels of the petitioner to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she gave 55 sovereigns of jewels to her sister Shaheela and the same was returned after the incident of theft. But however, according to the tenth respondent, the jewels of the petitioner weighing 25 sovereigns were kept with Shaheela and the same was returned immediately after the incident of theft.
4. According to the petitioner, as she wanted to go to Bengaluru to celebrate Ramzan, she wanted to keep her jewels safely and as per the advise of her daughter Sarah, the jewels were given to Ameer Abbas, who is employed in the Chennai Branch of the same company, in which Sarah is employed. Ameer Abbas kept those jewels in the locker of his brother-in-law by name Abdul Aziz, in the State Bank of India, Vadapalani Branch, Chennai.
5. According to the petitioner, on 13.01.2011, the tenth respondent along with the Sub-Inspector of Police Mr.Rajendran and two other policemen came to the residence of the petitioner and asked the whereabouts of the jewels that were returned by Shaheela. The petitioner informed the tenth respondent that the jewels are kept in the Bank locker through Ameer Abbas. According to the petitioner, the tenth respondent wanted the bills for the purchase of those jewels and the tenth respondent took away the bills for the purchase of about 80 sovereigns of jewels. The tenth respondent was at the house of the petitioner on 13.01.2011 between 10.00 a.m. and 01.30 pm. According to the petitioner, the tenth respondent obtained the phone number of Ameer Abbas, whose marriage was to take place on 16.01.2011, at Devakottai from her and c
