Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
R.Dharmalingam - Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station - Respondent
Crl.OP.No.15756 of 2016
Decided on : 10-08-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. N.Anand Venkatesh
For the Respondent: Mr. C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to order the transfer of investigation from one police station to another for re-investigation based on the unsatisfactory nature of the original investigation.
Headnote:
Transfer of Investigation - Criminal Petition - Indian Evidence Act, Section 27 - The court ordered the transfer of investigation of the case from one police station to the Central Crime Branch, Coimbatore for re-investigation. The court found the investigation conducted by the original police station unsatisfactory and directed the case records to be handed over to the competent officer at the Central Crime Branch for further investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition seeking the transfer of investigation of a case related to a forged sale agreement. The petitioner alleged that the original police station had conducted a perfunctory investigation and closed the case without proper enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation conducted by the original police station was unsatisfactory and ordered the transfer of the case to the Central Crime Branch, Coimbatore for re-investigation.
Issues: The main issue was the unsatisfactory investigation conducted by the original police station and the need for a re-investigation by a competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the unsatisfactory nature of the original investigation and the need for a thorough re-investigation to ensure justice.
Final Decision: The court ordered the transfer of the case to the Central Crime Branch, Coimbatore for re-investigation and directed the original police station to hand over the case records to the competent officer at the Central Crime Branch.
This criminal original petition has been filed to order transfer of investigation of the case in Crime No.306 of 2016 from the file of the 1st respondent to the file of the 2nd respondent.
2. This case appears to have a checkered history.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.
4. One N.J.Subramaniam, filed a suit in O.S.No.438 of 2009 against one Ganesamoorthy, Dharmalingam and four others before First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, for specific performance of a contract dated 15.03.2016. In the suit, it was pleaded by N.J.Subramaniam that Ramukutty Gounder, father of Dharmalingam, had entered into a sale agreement on 15.03.2006, under which, he had agreed to sell his property to him. After the death of Ramukutty Gounder, the suit has been filed for specific performance against his legal heirs as stated above. Dharmalingam entered appearance and found that, the agreement dated 15.03.2006 is a forged document, inasmuch as the stamp paper for the document itself was purchased only on 23.12.2008 in the name of N.J.Subramaniam, which is much after the death of Ramukutty Gounder on 11.08.2007.
5. Thus, it was prima facie clear that the agreement dated 15.03.2006, purported to have been signed by Ramukutty Gounder is a false document. In this regard, Dharmalingam lodged a complaint dated 02.08.2014 with the Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore. Based on the complaint, petition enquiry was conducted in CSR No.555 of 2014 and the same was perfunctorily closed on 10.08.2015. Dharmalingam filed Crl.O.P.No.15024/15 seeking for a direction to the respondent police to conduct proper enquiry on his complaint dated 02.08.2014. This court passed the following order in Crl.OP.No.15024 of 2015 on 15.10.2015:
"4. The crux of the allegation in the complaint is that the opposite parties had forged a sale agreement dated 15.03.2006, based on which, they have filed a suit for specific performance against the family members of the petitioner herein.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the stamp papers, on which the sale agreement dated 15.03.2006 was prepared itself, came into existence only on 23.12.2008. In support of this plea, the petitioner has obtained a letter dated 31.10.2014 from the concerned treasury. According to the petitioner, his father died on 11.08.2007 and the stamp papers came into existence only in the year 2008, with which, the sale agreement dated 15.03.2006 has been fabricated.
6. Since there are prima facie materials, this Court sets aside the closure report dated 10.08.2015 and directs the respondent police to conduct fresh enquiry on all these aspects and take action in accordance with law and the investigation shall be monitored by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sulur Sub Division.
In view of the above, the criminal original petition is closed."
Since no proper enquiry was conducted, despite the order passed by this Court, Dharmalingam filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.No. 2768/15, which came up for hearing before this court and this court has observed and passed the following order:
"4. This Court, in order to give an opportunity to the contemnor, directed the respondents to enquire in to the matter on 22.03.2016 and further the petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent police on that day along with relevant documents.
5. It was also admitted that on 22.03.2016, the petitioner has appeared before the respondent police and since on that day, another party has come forward to produce the original alleged sale agreement entered into between the petitioner and the proposed accused, the respondent police are not in a position to ascertain as to whether the sale agreement is true or genuine. Hence, they have closed the case.
6. Further on perusal of typed set of papers produced before this Court, it is seen that on the basis of alleged sale agreement, the proposed accused has filed O.S.No.438 of 2009 for specific perfor
