Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1504 of 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1585 of 2008)

T. C. Thangaraj

…… Appellant

Versus

V. Engammal & Ors.

……

Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1505 of 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1589 of 2008)

P. Suganthi & Anr.

…… Appellants

Versus

V. Engammal & Ors.

……

Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Delay condoned in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1589 of 2008.

2.

Leave granted.

3.

These are two appeals against the order dated

26.10.2007 of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in

Criminal Original Petition No.10987 of 2007 directing that

investigation into the case registered as Crime No.14 of

2006 with the District Crime Branch (DCB), Virudunagar,

be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation,

Chennai (for short ‘the CBI’).

4.

The facts briefly are that on 04.08.2006 a complaint

was submitted by V. Engammal, who has been impleaded

as a respondent in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to

as ‘the complainant’), to the Superintendent of Police,

Virudunagar District, Tamil Nadu. The complainant made

following allegations in the complaint: P. Kalaikathiravan,

appellant no.2 in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.)

No. 1589 of 2008, who was the then S.I. of Town Police

Station, told her and her husband that he was going to do

the business of real estate and that they should become

partners in the business but they told him that the

business will not work and thereafter he asked them to give

a loan of Rs.3 lakh and they handed over Rs.3 lakh to his

wife P. Suganthi, appellant no.1 in criminal appeal arising

out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1589 of 2008. P. Kalaikathiravan then

introduced T.C. Thangaraj, the appellant in criminal appeal

2

arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1585 of 2008, and one

Nagendran who were doing real estate business. When P.

Kalaikathiravan was transferred to Sethur Krishnapuram,

the complainant and her husband demanded repayment of

Rs.3 lakh, but P. Kalaikathiravan asked them to collect the

money from T.C. Thangaraj. T.C. Thangaraj accepted the

liability and gave two cheques dated 30.01.2004 and

04.02.2004 each of Rs.50,000/-, but the cheques were

returned with remarks from the bank that there were no

sufficient funds in the accounts. After P. Kalaikathiravan

came back to Virudunagar on promotion as Inspector, her

husband went to him many times and demanded money but

he refused to pay the same and sent him away. In the

complaint, the complainant requested the Superintendent of

Police to initiate action against the Inspector, P.

Kalaikathiravan, his wife P. Suganthi and T.C. Thangaraj,

who had cheated the complainant and her husband. The

Superintendent of Police sent the complaint to the Office In-

charge of DCB, Police Station Virudunagar, on 04.08.2006

and the complaint was registered as Crime No.14 of 2006

under Sections 409, 420, 471 read with Section 34 of the

3

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’).

5.

When there was no progress in the investigation on the

complaint, the complainant filed Crl. O.P. No.8782 of 2006

under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

(for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) before the Madras High Court,

Madurai Bench, with a prayer to entrust the case to the CBI

for proper investigation. The High Court in its order dated

13.04.2007 noticed that the case is against a police officer

and the grievance of the complainant was that the police

department was not taking interest in pursuing the matter.

The High Court, however, found that the matter was before

the Judicial Magistrate and disposed of the petition giving

liberty to the complainant to appear before the Judicial

Magistrate concerned and file, if necessary, a protest

petition if the case has been treated as a m