Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Maruthai - Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Police, Chennai & Others - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 14609 of 2021
Decided On : 30-08-2022
For the Petitioner:R. Sankarasubbu, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R3, A. Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
The main legal point established is that the court will not entertain a petition for transfer of investigation if detailed investigation has been conducted and no offence is made out against the accused persons.
Headnote:
Transfer of Investigation - Criminal Original Petition - Section 120B, 419, 420, 409, 424, 465, 466, 468, 477A, 506(i) of IPC - The court discussed the transfer of investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2014(1) Supreme 737 in the case of Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged misappropriation of funds by the Manager of a bank and other accused persons, leading to the filing of a complaint and subsequent investigation. The petitioner sought transfer of the investigation to CBCID, Trichy for fair investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that detailed investigation had been conducted, and no offence was made out against the accused persons. The court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, stating that the petitioner could file a protest petition on the closure report if dissatisfied.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged misappropriation of funds, the conduct of the investigation, and the petitioner's request for transfer of investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the findings of the investigation, which concluded that no offence was made out against the accused persons. The court also emphasized the petitioner's option to file a protest petition if dissatisfied with the closure report.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to file a protest petition on the closure report if dissatisfied.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to transfer the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur to CBCID, Trichy for fair investigation to secure the ends of justice.)
1. This petition has been filed to transfer the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur to CBCID, Trichy.
2. The petitioner lodged complaint alleging that he along with his family members borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- from the City Union Bank, Vilanthai Branch, Aandimadam and the Manager of the said bank along with other accused persons conspired together and falsely created forged documents and misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,28,30,395/- without disbursing the said amount to the petitioner. On receipt of the complaint, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur registered a FIR in Crime No.3 of 2019 for the offences under Section 120B, 419, 420, 409, 424, 465, 466, 468, 477A, 506(i) of IPC.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though quash petitions and the anticipatory bail petitions filed by the accused persons were dismissed by this Court, the investigating officer failed to secure the accused and investigate the matter. Thereafter, for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, he closed the complaint as “further action dropped” and also filed closure report in Crime No.3 of 2019. In fact, the petitioner already filed petition for transfer of investigation in Crl.O.P.No.3821 of 2021 and this Court by an order dated 26.02.2021 directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within a period of three months. Therefore, the petitioner submitted detail representation before the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy and on receipt of the same, he directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, to conduct further investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019.
3.1. In the mean while, again the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, submitted report that there is no material available to conduct further investigation and closed the FIR. When there are specific allegations to attract the offences as registered by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur, as against the accused persons, for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officers, they closed the FIR as further action dropped. In fact, in the closure report, they recorded the statement of the witnesses and it clearly constitutes the offences as such, the Investigating Officer ought not to have closed the FIR.
3.2. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Inspector General of Police, Trichy directed the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District to appoint a new Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur to conduct re-investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019. Unfortunately, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur without conducting any re-investigation mechanically on the material placed on record, again closed the FIR.
3.3 In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2014(1) Supreme 737 in the case of Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat. In that case the transfer of investigation ordered by the High Court of Gujarat was challenged by the accused, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld the order passed by the High Court. He also relied upon various judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and prayed to transfer the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2019.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that after registration of the FIR, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch completed the investigation and closed the sa
