BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16/08/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1708 of 2007 L.Arputharaj ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, (Anti Corruption Branch), Sasthri Bhavan, Chennai. 2.M.Periyaswamy, I.R.A.S., Deputy Financial Advisor of Chief Accounts Office, (Workshop and Stores), Goldenrock Workshop, Southern Railway, Golden Rock, Tiruchirappalli - 620 004. (R2 impleaded as per the orders of this Court in M.P(MD)NO.1 of 2007 dated 10.04.2007.) 3.The Chief Works Manager, Railway Workshop, Golden Rock, Trichirappalli. 4.The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai. ... Respondents (R3 and R4 impleaded as per the orders of this Court in M.P(MD)NO.2 of 2007 dated 16.08.2007.) Prayer Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the first respondent to enquire into the complaint of the petitioner dated 04.01.2007 against the respondents 3 to 5 and investigate the same in accordance with law. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.M.Makesh Kumaravel ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.Jayakumar, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for R.1. Mr.Periyaswamy, R2. (Party - in - person) Mr.M.Patturajan for R3 and R4. :ORDER
This petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to enquire
into the complaint of the petitioner dated 04.01.2007 against the respondents 3
to 5 and investigate the same in accordance with law.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, the second respondent, M.Periyaswamy, party-in-
person and the learned Counsel for Railways, R3 and R4.
3. The background facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the
disposal of this petition would run thus:
The gist and kernel of the grievance of the petitioner is to the effect
that he is an employee in Southern Railway; owing to mismanagement, there
occurred a loss running to several crores in carrying out the Railway works;
Concur Indian Limited, is a private party which entered into contract for
performing railway works and thereby got benefited causing loss to the Railways;
and Concur gave money to the officials in the Railway Department for
distributing in the form of benefits to the workers who were actually involved
in the contract work, but, contrary to it, the higher officials of the Railway
Department distributed the money in the form of gold coins to various
unconnected Central and State Government officials and Private sectors officials
also and that too quite against the Conduct Rules as well as the official norms;
and that the petitioner prays for ordering a broad based roving enquiry into the
matter so as to cull out the truth.
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Railway Administration would
detail and delineate by way of torpedoing and tarnishing the allegations of the
petitioner, would submit that absolutely there was no irregularities or
illegalities perpetrated by the officials. Contract works were entrusted to
Concur which is out and out, a public sector undertaking under the Indian
Railways and it is not a private sector as alleged by the petitioner. The said
money given by Concur was approved by the Board of Concur and that money was
distributed not in the form of alleged gold coins, but only as Railway emblems.
As such, in an approved manner legally, it was distributed to the concerned
persons with the approval of Railway Board.
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would submit that
the C.B.I looked into the matter and prima facie and ex facie arrived at the
finding that the Concur happened to be the public sector undertaking, it goes
without saying that the Railway Department is part of the Government and in such
a case, no question of Concur being favoured by Railways would arise.
6. The second respondent, M.Periyaswamy, party-in-person, would air his
grievance relating to the conduct of police pursuant to the previous order in
Crl.O.P.NO.9195 of 2005, in which he was party and that case was relating to,
obtaining a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.C.R. Unit,
Trichy to register a case as against certain Railway officials based on his
complaint dated 22.10.2005. In that petition, my learned Predecessor passed
order as under:
“4. It is not in controversy that a complaint was received by the 12th
respondent and is also pending enquiry and the petitioner has also appeared on
15.11.2005. Under the circumstance, this Court is of the considered opinion
that it is suffice to issue a direction to the 12th respondent to go into the
allegations made, make thorough enquiry and proceed in accordance with law and
it is ordered accordingly. This Criminal Original Petition is ordered.”
7. The second respondent, M.Periyaswamy, would state that the said Deputy
Superintendent of Police as per the order of this Court, looked into the matter
and closed it with the finding that no cognizable offence was found made out.
Periyaswamy also supports the contention of the petitioner in this petition.
8. At this juncture, I would like to point out that the grievance of the
second respondent is mainly based on the inaction of the police relating to his
complaint dated 22.10.2005 relating to his personal matter. If he is not
satisfied with the investigation conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, it is open for him to take further action based on such communication
given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to him and it is open for him to
set the law in motion as per the well-established procedures.
9. Here, the core question arises as to whether this Court while
exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can order as prayed in the last
paragraph of the petition, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
“It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to
direct the respondent to enquire into the complaint of the petitioner dated
04.01.2007 against the 3 to 5 respondents and investigate the same in accordance
with law.”
10. Now then, the C.B.I has come forward with the specific stand as set
out supra. As per the CBI in the facts and circumstances of this case, they are
not bound to probe further into the complaint.
11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the second
respondent, party-in-person, would insist for a broad based roving enquiry to be
initiated as against the allegations. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be
seen. It is clear from the above narration that Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be
invoked for anything and everything. The writ jurisdiction is entirely
different from the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section
482 Cr.P.C is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
“482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall
be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.”
12. It only recognises the inherent power of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or
prevent the abuse of the process of any Court. The terminologies highlighted
are of paramount importance.
13. Here, nothing has been highlighted that any Court or the Police
Department had committed any mistake. In catena of decisions, the Honourable
Apex Court held that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C cannot simply be invoked
in replacement of the writ jurisdiction. For ordering a broad based enquiry
into the matter, first of all, the Central Government should be a party along
with the Railway Ministry as they are the Supervising Authority over the
Southern Railways. As per the arguments of the second respondent as well as the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, already, the petitioner petitioned the
Central Government and the Ministry of Railways and it is not known as to what
is their stand in this matter and they are the appropriate persons to apply the
mind and order for a broad based roving enquiry if necessary. Without
resorting to appropriate proceedings, the petitioner is not justified in trying
to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C, based on some suspected mismanagement in Railways.
14. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of leaving the
parties to seek remedy in the way known to law.
rsb
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
(Anti Corruption Branch),
Sasthri Bhavan, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.