Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
V. Ramachandran - Petitioner
Versus
The State by Director General of Police, Head of Police Force, Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 15601 of 2022 and W.M.P. No.16518 of 2021
Decided On : 27-10-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 406, 420, 341, 506 (i), 109, 147, 148, 452 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 36, 173(8), 156(3), 154, 91, 160 - punishment for committing criminal breach of trust - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Punishment for wrongful restraint - Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash impugned proceedings of first respondent bearing Rc. /Crime, and FIR in Crime registered by second respondent in pursuance of impugned order - Held, By assigning a new FIR number by second respondent for pending Calendar Case in C.C. on file of Judicial Magistrate VII (FAC), Coimbatore which originated from Cr. of third respondent would amount to give a go-by to earlier case in Cr - Action of respondents 1 and 3 would amount to causing a reinvestigation or a new investigation of a case in which charge sheet has already been laid and Court had taken cognizance of same - In guise of exercising power of appointing a Special Police Officer for investigating a case, a case cannot be subjected to reinvestigation or fresh investigation without orders of constitutional Courts - Since impugned order of first respondent has only resulted in a kind of reinvestigation by assigning a new case number in Cr. by a different agency, no doubt above proceedings are erroneous and not in accordance with law - Writ Petition allowed
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent bearing Rc.No.1180794/Crime 3(1)/2021, dated 23.06.2021 and FIR in Crime No.1 of 2021 dated 07.07.2021 registered by the second respondent in pursuance of the impugned order dated 23.06.2021.
2. The brief facts which are relevant for the filing of the Writ Petition is as follows:
The petitioner is a reputed Doctor in the city of Coimbatore and he is running a hospital in the name and style “Lakshmi Narayana Clinic”. One Dr. Umashankar who was a specialist in Cardiology was working in Apollo Hospitals at Chennai. The said Dr. Umashankar approached the petitioner to take over the petitioner's hospital and run the same in the name and style M/s.Chennai Hospitals Private Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'CHPL'). On 05.07.2017 a lease agreement was entered into between the petitioner and CHPL represented by its Managing Director and the lease deed was registered as Document No.3673 of 2017 at the office of SRO, Ganapathy, Coimbatore. The period of lease is for ten years and CHPL has agreed to pay the rent in accordance with the terms of the lease deed. Dr. Umashankar had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as security deposit which is agreed to be refunded without interest at the time of handing over the premises.
2.1 The hospital was functioning as M/s.Chennai Hospitals Private Limited. As agreed, the amount was not paid to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner sent a letter to Dr. Umashankar to vacate the premises. In view of the subsequent dialogue between the petitioner and Dr. Umashankar, a cheque for a sum of Rs.65,85,300/- was issued to the petitioner. However, the same was returned as “payment stopped by the drawer”. The petitioner came to know that Dr. Umashankar is trying to usurp the property upon himself. When the petitioner enquired the same with Dr. Umashankar and his Manager Maruthavanan (fourth respondent herein), they threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Hence a complaint was lodged by the petitioner on 02.11.2020 and FIR was registered against Dr. Umashankar and his Manager Marudhavanan in Cr. No.36/2020 by the third respondent / CCB Central Crime Branch, Coimbatore, for the offences under Section 406, 420, 341, 506 (i) and 109 IPC. Thereafter, Dr. Umashankar approached the petitioner for compromise and agreed to vacate the premises. He had also given some cheques towards arrears of rent but they were returned as “funds insufficient”. Though Dr. Umashankar agreed to vacate the premises, on 04.12.2020, he along with his Manager and their henchmen entered the hospital premises with deadly premises and threatened the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to him. Hence on 05.12.2020 the petitioner gave another police complaint to Rathinapuri Police Station and registered a FIR in Cr. No.1376 of 2020 against Dr. Umashankar, his Manager Marudhavanan and others for offences under Section 147, 148, 452 and 506 (ii) IPC. In this connection a civil suit was also filed by the petitioner in O.S. No.1232 of 2020 seeking certain reliefs.
2.2 On 23.01.2021, Dr. Umashankar died in a road accident. One of the Directors of CHPL had filed a suit in O.S. No.490 of 2021 against the petitioner for the relief of permanent injunction restraining him from encumbering the suit property. On 09.02.2021, Mrs. U. Revathi W/o. Dr. Umashankar and her daughters issued a legal notice to the petitioner for appointment of Arbitrator. On 17.02.2021, the third respondent Police filed charge sheet in the case in Cr. No.36 of 2020 before the learned Judicial Magistrate VII (FAC), Coimbatore and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and the case was numbered as C.C. No.509 of 2021 and summons has also been issued to the accused.
2.3 On 21.05.2021, the Director of CHPL, issued notice by invoking arbitration clause in the lease agreement and nominated a retired Judge of High Court as a
The investigation agency has the statutory right to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without seeking permission from the Magistrate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the police have the right to conduct further investigation even after the submission of the charge sheet before the Magistrate, and there is n....
The Magistrate cannot treat a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on a charge-sheet; further investigation rights lie with the police.
The police have the right to conduct further investigation after a charge sheet is filed without needing prior permission from the Magistrate.
The Magistrate cannot retroactively classify a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on an investigation report, as further investigations are solely under the police's purview without re....
The court affirmed that magistrates cannot order further investigations post-cognizance without evidence of malafide, upholding the legitimacy of the charge sheet filed under Section 498A.
Further investigation – Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within discretion of Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on facts of each case and in accordance with....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that further investigation is a statutory right of the police under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C, and formal permission from the Court is required if t....
Secretary (Home) cannot pass order for further investigation by CBCID.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
