Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3511
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
V.R. Krishnakumar @ Varaaki - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai - Respondent
Crl. O.P. Nos. 31418, 31419, 31425, 31426, 31429 of 2024, Crl. M.P. Nos. 17910, 17911, 17912, 17913, 17915 of 2024
Decided On : 13-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Rajkumar Pandian
For the Respondent: K.M.D. Muhilan
The court affirmed the right to a fair investigation under Article 21, allowing transfer of cases to an independent agency when malafide intent is evident.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 - Transfer of investigation - Petitioner, a whistleblower, alleged that multiple FIRs were filed against him with malafide intent to suppress his exposure of corruption involving public officials - Court found that the investigations were tainted and directed transfer to an independent agency for fair investigation. (Paras 12, 18, 25)
(B) Fair Investigation - The right to a fair investigation is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution - The court emphasized that the accused cannot choose the investigating agency, but in exceptional cases, transfer may be warranted to ensure credibility and instill confidence in the investigation. (Paras 19, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an activist and journalist, faced multiple FIRs allegedly filed to silence him after he exposed corruption involving public officials. He claimed these cases were fabricated to harass him. (Paras 3, 11)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIRs were registered with malafide intent and directed the transfer of all cases to an independent agency for a fair investigation. (Paras 25, 26)
Issues: The main issues included whether the FIRs were fabricated and if the investigation should be transferred to ensure fairness. (Paras 12, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a fair investigation is fundamental and that the transfer of investigation is justified in cases involving high officials to maintain public confidence in justice. (Paras 22, 23)
Result: All FIRs transferred to CBCID for investigation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims malafide intent (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 2. right to fair investigation (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. transfer of firs to cbcid (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
ORDER :
1. These petitions have been filed calling for the records culminating in Crime Nos. 180, 182, 266, 181 and 176 of 2024, pending investigation on the file of the second respondent and transfer the same to third respondent or any other investigating agency to be appointed by this Hon'ble Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
3. The petitioner is claiming to be an Activist, Journalist and a Whistle blower committed to exposing corruption and misconduct in public offices. He filed more than 60 Public Interest Litigations before this Court for the public causes. During the course of investigative journalism, he had gathered certain information regarding the corruption and misconduct involving the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai viz., the first respondent herein and also some registering authorities. Thereafter, he had published the video and contents in his Youtube channel. Thereafter, the first respondent developed a personal vendetta against the petitioner. The first respondent conspired with other officials and foisted a false complaint as against the petitioner, thereby five cases were registered against the petitioner.
4. On 12.09.2024, FIR in Crime No.289 of 2024 was registered by the Inspector of Police, E1 Mylapore Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 447, 189, 353, 387, 307 and 506(2) IPC and Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000, on the complaint given by the Sub Registrar of Guduvancherry. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.09.2024. The petitioner, while he was in prison, he was arrested under PT Warrant in the case registered in Crime No.180 of 2024, on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB, Vepery, Chennai.
5. The crux of the FIR in Crime No.180 of 2024 is that originally the Inspector of Police, P5 MKB Nagar Police Station registered FIR in Crime No.649 of 2024 on 21.09.2024 for the alleged offences under Sections 34, 294(b), 406, 420, 307 and 506(1) IPC and the same was transferred to the file of Assistant Commissioner of Police as directed by the first respondent and re-registered in Crime No.180 of 2024, on 04.10.2024 alleging that while the defacto complainant was discussing with his friends in the campus for obtaining gas agency in the month of February, 2023, the petitioner heard the matter and approached the defacto complainant that he could obtain gas agency through sources and demanded a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs and also had assured that he could get the gas agency within two months. Believing the said words, the defacto complainant had paid the said amount near Aavin Milk Booth of this Court. But the petitioner neither arranged for gas agency nor returned the amount. When the defacto complainant demanded to repay the said amount, the petitioner had threatened him by accompanying other three persons. One of them had attempted to stab the defacto complainant with knife, but he escaped from the attack. However, he lodged a complaint only on 21.09.2024. On the said complaint, originally the Inspector of Police, P5 MKB Nagar Police Station, registered FIR and subsequently transferred to the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai and re-registered the FIR in Crime No.180 of 2024.
6. Insofar as the defacto complainant in Crime No.289 of 2024 is concerned, on 28.09.2024, unaccounted money to the tune of Rs.4,20,000/- was recovered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police from the office of the defacto complainant and registered FIR in Crime No.176 of 2024. Further, another Sub-Registrar one Paada Lingam was subjected to departmental action for causing loss to the tune of Rs.10 Crores to
