Prosecution of theatre for an offence u/s 420 I.P.C.

These petitions have been filed, for transfer of the enquiry under Sec.340, Criminal Procedure Code, pending on the file of the J.M.H.L., Poonamallee, to any other competent Court at Madras and for further direction that the enquiry ordered by the said Magistrate in Crime No.29 of 1988, should be conducted by the C.B., C.I.D., Madras instead of the Poonamallee Police Station.

2. A few facts are necessary for the disposal of these two petitions. The petitioner is the first informant in Crime No.29 of 1988 registered at the Korattur Police Station. The crime was investigated by the second respondent, viz., the Inspector of Police, Crimes, Ambattur Industrial Estate Police Station. The F.I.R. related to an offence under Sec.420, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by the first respondent. The first respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.452 of 1988 on the file of this Court for anticipatory bail and by an order dated 28.1.1988, this Court directed the release of the first respondent on bail in the event of arrest, on his executing a bond for Rs.3,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M. (now J.M.I), Poonamallee. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent produced fictitious sureties before the Magistrate which necessitated his filing an application under Sec.340, Criminal Procedure Code for taking action against the first respondent and the other persons involved in the production of sureties, who were fictitious. The case of the petitioner is that the certificates of the Village Officers have been forged and fictitious persons were produced before the Magistrate as sureties on behalf of the first respondent.

3. The said application under Sec.340, Cr.P.C., was filed on 23.2.1988. The Magistrate directed the Inspector of Police, P6onamallee, to enquire and submit a report. A report was submitted on 20.3.1988, stating that the sureties were fictitious and the solvency certificate produced by the first respondent was a forged one. It was also brought to the notice of the Magistrate, by the petitioner, that the same rubber stamp which had been used in the solvency certificate produced by the first respondent, had been used in similar such certificates produced before the same Court, in several other cases. The petitioner had on an earlier occasion filed Crl.M.P.No.6901 of 1988 before this Court for transfer of the enquiry from the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee to any other competent Court at Madras. This Court by an order dated 8.2.1989, directed the lower Court to instruct the Inspector of Police, Poonamallee, to conduct the enquiry expeditiously since the matter was pending for several months, and submit a report to the Magistrate within one month, to facilitate further action being taken by the Magistrate. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action had been taken, though several months have elapsed and that would be sufficient ground, for transferring the enquiry from the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee, to any other competent Court. As far as the enquiry by the C.B., C.I.D., is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the advocates concerned in the production of sureties were practising before the Courts in Chengalpattu District, including the Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee, and therefore, he would not get justice. 4. In the counter filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the complaint of the petitioner, had been referred by the second respondent, as being purely a civil dispute. The first respondent had denied that sureties produced by him were fictitious. A specific ground has been taken in the counter, that the petition for transfer was not maintainable and that there could be no investigation by the police in a matter under Sec.340, Cr.P.C. Only the Court before which the alleged offence is said to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding before it, can conduct an enquiry and