IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17/03/2004
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM
CRL.O.P.No.34266 of 2003
K.R.N. Balamurugan ..Petitioner.
-Vs-
1. State of Tamilnadu rep. by
its Secretary, Home Dept.,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 004.
2. The Director General of Police,
Kamaraj Salai, Chennai-4.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
4. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Dindigul. ..Respondents.
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for the relief as
stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr. R. Kumar
Senior Counsel
for Mr. R. Loganathan
For respondents: Mr. A.N. Thambidurai
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
:O R D E R
The petitioner/complainant in Cr.No.260/2002 on the file of Kannivadi
Police Station, now pending with the 4th respondent, not satisfied with the
investigation, filed this application, for transfer of the case to C.B.C.I.D.,
Chennai, for further investigation.
2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of 4.36 acres in
Survey No.62/1 and 7.46 acres in Survey No.64, situated at Chattirapatti
Village, under a registered sale deed dated 31.7.1996. When the petitioner
made preparation for obtaining a bank loan, by mortgaging the above said
properties, he came to know that one Sahayanathan had sold a part of the
properties as also 7/8th share in the well on the land, as if the properties
were sold to him by the petitioner for Rs.1.79 lakhs on 12.7.2001. The sale
deed dated 12.7. 2001 is a forged document, since the petitioner had not even
seen Sahayanathan, nor did he sell the properties in his favour on 12.7.2001.
Thus, having noticed a forged document, in respect of his properties, he
preferred a complaint to the police and after persuasion or direction, a case
was registered in Cr.No.260/2002 by Kannivadi Police Station, under Sections
363, 384, 419, 420, 465 and 471 I.P.C., which is being investigated by the
fourth respondent. The accused in the said crime number are influential
persons and the petitioner may not get proper justice, if the investigation is
conducted by the 4th respondent. Thus apprehending, this petition is filed
for transfer of investigation from 4th respondent to C.B.C.I.D, Chennai, for
the purpose of impartial investigation and to file a final report.
3. The petition for transferring the investigation is opposed on
various grounds.
4. The reasons alleged for transferring the investigation, as
seen from the affidavit are, that the investigating agency without directing
their attention to the established forgery, tried to hurriedly file a final
report, since one of the accused happens to be the Joint Commissioner, H.R. &
C.E., an influential person in the area, wielding or radiating influence.
Under these circumstances, if the investigation is carried out by the 4th
respondent, it may not be impartial is the further case of the complainant.
To find out, whether is there any genuine grievance, for the petitioner to
transfer the investigation and whether such a relief could be made at present
under Section 48 2 Cr.P.C., we have to see the previous proceedings initiated
by the petitioner, as well as the stage of the investigation.
5. The petitioner aggrieved by the slackness of the police, in
not registering the case moved a petition before this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C., seeking direction to take action on the complaint given by him in
Cr.No.14766/2002. When the criminal original petition came up for hearing on
4.10.2002, on behalf of the police, it was reported that a case has been
registered in Cr.No.260/2002 for the offences under Sections 363, 384, 419,
420, 465 and 471 I.P.C. and the matter is pending for investigation.
Recording the statements of the learned Government Advocate, the criminal
original petition was dismissed on 4.10.2002.
6. The petitioner once again moved the High Court invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issue of Writ of Mandamus, to transfer the investigation,
pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Kannivadi Police Station,
Dindigul District to the C.B. C.ID, Chennai. This Court while disposing of
the said application has observed:
“In my opinion, these grounds by themselves may not be enough to transfer the
investigation, that too, at this threshold stage from the file of the
investigating police station to CBCID, Chennai.”
However, considering the accusation made by the petitioner and in order to
erase the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner, this Court had directed
the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District to monitor the investigation
to be done by the Station House Officer, Kannivadi Police Station. In this
view, the writ petition was disposed of on 3.12.2002. Thereafter alone, this
petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. From the proceedings initiated by the petitioner, as narrated
above, it could be seen, that the petitioner had approached this Court, for
relief under wider jurisdiction, viz., invoking Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and in that writ petition, a finding is given, that the
grounds alleged are not sufficient enough to transfer the investigation. The
same grounds alone, in different forms, are alleged in this petition, invoking
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of
the admitted position, that the relief now claimed by the petitioner, was
already negatived by this Court, I am of the view, that the subsequent
petition invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for transfer of
investigation, is not at all maintainable and the petition deserves to be
dismissed. Even otherwise, I find no sufficient reason, to transfer the case,
to C.B.C.I.D., Chennai.
8. The case was registered in Cr.No.260/2002 at Kannivadi Police
Station. Considering the sensitiveness raised by the petitioner and the
persons involved in this case and also the serious allegations levelled, it
seems, the investigation was entrusted with the District Crime Branch,
Dindigul. In obedience to the direction given by this Court in
W.P.No.43090/2002, the investigation was monitored by the Superintendent of
Police. The 4th respondent, had examined a number of witnesses and came to
the conclusion that on the date of the alleged execution of the forged
document viz., 12.7.2001, the petitioner and his henchmen were also present in
the registration office and on that basis, in the mind of investigation
agency, a doubt had arisen, even the petitioner may be the cause, for such a
forged document, though it is not the conclusion. This Court is not called
upon to decide whether the investigation is proper or not. However,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the investigation
failed to disclose, who had committed the forgery, a final report has been
filed before the court concerned, informing that it is a mistake of fact, for
which notice was also served to the complainant. Therefore, the petitioner
has to work out his remedy, if any, under Section 200 Cr. P.C. or by filing
a suit, to set aside the document, if he is so advised and I am unable to find
any reason, much less valid reason, to order reinvestigation at this stage,
because of the fact, investigation was already completed by the 4th respondent
and a final report had already been filed.
9. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is not a routine work, for mere asking, for anything and everything
and it should come within the four walls of Section 482 Cr.P.C. In order to
have a relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C., there must be an order under the
Code, so as to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court, to make such
orders as may be necessary, to give effect to any order under this Code, which
is absent in this case. The second category is to prevent abuse of process of
any court, which is also not admittedly available to the petitioner, since his
complaint is in the stage of investigation. The third category must be one
coming under the heading “to secure the ends of justice”. If at all, the
claim of the petitioner could be brought in under the last limb of Section 482
Cr.P.C. and in my considered opinion, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, it is also not possible. As seen from the facts of the case, the
matter more or less relates to civil nature between the close relatives of the
practising advocate viz., the petitioner. Probably taking advantage of his
position, he wants to settle the family dispute, invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court, which is not possible, since, his claim will not
come to secure the ends of justice, which would be available to him, under the
law, for that no inherent jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that as per
the investigation so far carried out, it is made out that the document dated
12.7.2001 is a forged document, which would indicate that the petitioner had
not executed any sale deed, in favour of Sahayanathan, which should follow, he
cannot validly execute a sale deed, that too on 6.7.2001. It seems,
Sahayanathan claims that he had purchased the property from the property on
12.7.2001, which is proved to be a forged document. But it is not known, as
rightly submitted by the learned counsel, how he had sold the property on
6.7.2001. Sahayanathan also had been examined, as seen from the final report,
which was monitored by the Superintendent of Police also. As seen from the
files produced for perusal, there is some inconsistency, which cannot be
denied. But despite the fact, number of witnesses have been examined, the
police is unable to fix, who had committed the forgery in executing the sale
deed dated 12.7.2001, and in this view alone, they have closed the case as
mistake of fact, though the petition for transfer of investigation is pending
before this Court, since it seems there was no stay. It is not for the Court
at this stage, to find out the correctness of investigation. As such, the
investigation has been completed and under the change of circumstances, even
assuming Section 482 Cr. P.C. could be invoked, no question of transfer of
investigation arises. The power vested with the High Court, under this
Section is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in the Code,
for efficacious redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. As
aforementioned, if the petitioner felt that the investigation has not been
properly done, after the service of referred charge sheet, he can invoke
Section 200 Cr.P.C., to deal with the person, who offended his right, by
forging a document or to safeguard his civil right, he can move the civil
forum for appropriate relief.
11. When alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, to
work out his remedy, invoking the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
ordering reinvestigation, is not possible and in this view of the matter, I
find no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
kv
To
1. State of Tamilnadu rep. by
its Secretary, Home Dept.,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 004.
2. The Director General of Police,
Kamaraj Salai, Chennai-4.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
4. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Dindigul.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.