ORDER

The writ petition has been filed for prohibiting the respondents from releasing any information related to crime No.16 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent in relation to accused-I.Kuppuraj till the completion of the investigation

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint dated 04.08.2022 that he became acquainted with accused Saravana Kumar of Kanchipuram who is running the business in the name and style of Minmini printers and Minmini promotors. The first accused had informed the complainant Kumar about his friend Mohan babu and his brothers Lakshmi Narayanan, Veda Narayanan and Janarthanan, who are running a firm in the name of International Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as 'IFS' for short) at Sathuvachari, Vellore and another firm LNS, International Financial Services at Guindy, Chennai. Further, the first accused had informed that it is a registered firm, where deposits are invested in share market and returns of 6% to 10% interest per month is being given on the amount deposited and that many branches of this firm is functioning at various places in Tamilnadu. It is further alleged that one, A.Kumar was approached by one, Saravana Kumar(A6) for investing money in International Financial Services Limited (IFS) (A-1) on promise of return of 6 to 10 per cent per month. Believing on the representation of the said Kumar, the defacto complainant had invested a huge sum of Rs.6,35,00,000/-. The accused persons had misappropriated the funds and had failed to repay the amount to the defacto complainant. Further, the accused persons instead of investing the amounts in the share market, they purchased properties and luxury cars in the name of 6th accused. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the course of investigation, the second respondent had taken her husband for interrogation on 07.08.2022. He was under illegal custody till

12.08.2022. Therefore, the petitioner filed petition before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore under Section 97 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.MP.No.23800 of 2022. Immediately on the same day, at about 11.00 p.m., her husband was produced before the Special Court under TNPID Act Cases, Chennai. However, the Special Court refused to remand him. Again on 13.08.2022, her husband was produced and he was remanded to judicial custody. While being so, on 17.08.2022, the media through all news channels reported that her husband and another person are the main people involved in the scam where they have collected Rs.6 crores from the public. They also reported that her husband and the other person were agents who failed to return the deposited amounts and therefore, based on the complaint of the investors, her husband was arrested for misappropriation of funds. He further submitted that the investigation officer is bound by law to keep the details of the investigation in a confidential manner. Her husband is entitled to his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the respondents ought not to have released any information in relation to crime No.16 of 2022 against the petitioner's husband. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Murukeshan Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2011(1) KLT 194 rendered by the Kerala High Court, wherein it is held as follows:

“7. It is a passion for certain investigating officers to disseminate to the media piecemeal or full information regarding the progress of investigation. All concerned should realise that once a case involving the commission of a cognizable offence has been registered in the F.I.R. forwaded to the magistrate concerned, the matter is subJudice and no police officer has the right to leak out information regarding the outcome of investigation until the final report is eventually filed before the court. Cases may attract either justifiable or uncalled for media publicity. There is a