K. Selvam @ Selavaperunthagai vs State

S. Ashok Kumar, J.—These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to transfer the cases in Crime No. 136/03 (J5, Sastri Nagar Police

Station, Chennai), Crime Nos: 138 and 451 of 2003 (J6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai) and Crime No:277/03 (R-4, Pondy Bazaar

Police Station, Chennai), to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Chennai for further investigation.

According to the petitioner Selvam @ Selva Perunthagai, he has been implicated in the above four cases, foisted falsely by the police to cripple

and paralyse his political career by a conspiracy hatched by the Chennai Police and also for the purpose of detaining him under Act 14 of 1982.

According to the petitioner, various lacunas and loopholes would have made him to approach this court for quashing the FIRs of the four cases.

But if the FIRs are quashed, the persons who are instrumental would escape from their liability. According to the petitioner he could very well

prove his innocence and come out of the cases successfully after undergoing trial. But according to him, the persons who are instrumental of

foisting false cases against the petitioner will go Scot free and escape from criminal liability. This is the reason the petitioner has filed these Criminal

O.Ps with a prayer to transfer the investigation of all above four cases to CBI, Special Crime Branch, Chennai. The details of the four cases filed

against the petitioner and the contention of the petitioner are as follows:-

(i) Crime No:451/03 of J.6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai (Crl.O.P.No:3446 of 2004) is for offences under Sections 294(b), 307, 506(ii)

IPC and Sec. 3 of Explosive Subtances Act. According to the petitioner, on 30.4.2003 at about 11.30 p.m., he was returning from the Anna

International Airport, Meenambakkam along with one Sakthivel @ Adalarasu in his car driven by his driver Palanivel, after seeing off Mr.

Thirumavalavan, President of the party who flew to United States of America. The car was intercepted at the Halda Junction, Guindy by the

Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar Ditrict, Chennai and whisked away along with his driver. The petitioner was taken to the Sastry Nagar

Police Station, where he was illegally detained for the whole night. The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court was flouted in so far as the

petitioner was not informed of the grounds of arrest, he was denied any legal assistance etc.,

(ii) On 1.5.2003, at about 12 noon, he along with his driver Palanivel was produced before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate at his house where he

came to know that a case in J.6,Thiruvanmiyur Police Station in Crime No.451 of 2003 has been registered by the Inspector of Police against him

and the driver. The petitioner and Palanivel were remanded to judicial custody for 15 days under the sections mentioned earlier. The case was said

to have been registered on 1.5.2003 at about 6.45 hours and the petitioner was shown arrested at 8.45 hours. This case was shown as the ground

case in the grounds of detention when the petitioner was detained under Act 14 of 1982. Before arrest on 30.4.2003, the petitioner contacted his

wife Smt.Umayal at about 11.30 hours through his Cellular Phone No.31021858 and informed her that he will be back at home soon. After he

was picked up by the police and kept under illegal detention, the petitioner''s wife panicked by his non return was continuously calling the petitioner

over his cellular phone. Since the petitioner was prevented from talking over his cellular telephone and the phone was taken away by the police,

these calls have been registered as ""missed calls"". A perusal of the ""missed calls"" would show that there were 12 calls from the petitioner''s wife

from Phone No.24468717, residential phone number of the petitioner, and his brother in law right from 01.35 am of 1.5.2003 to 6.42 a.m., of the

same day. This cellular phone had been seized by the Inspector of Police, J6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station and deposited in the IX Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was returned only on an application for return of property. From this, it will be clear that if the

petitioner had not been illegally detained by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar District, right from 12 midnight of 30.4.2003, then he

would have spoken to his wife to intimate his whereabouts. In an alleged confessions of the petitioner recorded by the Inspector of Police, it has

been mentioned as if the petitioner after seeing off Mr. Thirumavalavan went to Tambaram straight from the Airport. If the petitioner really had

gone to Tambaram he would have intimated this fact at least to his wife. The petitioner''s wife Tmt. Umayal had intimated this fact as early as

6thmay, 2003 when she submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City about the illegal detention of the petitioner and

foisting of false case upon him.

(iii) The Same Inspector of Police also registered a case in Crime No:138 of 2003 on 5.2.2003 on the complaint of one Babu son of Rabesh. But

the petitioner was not arrested till 1.5.2003. Actually, the petitioner was in Madurai on that date to attend the marriage of one Sakthivel, a party

functionary and he returned to Chennai only on 6.2.2003. While the first respondent who was the Sponsoring Authority for detaining the petitioner

under Act 14 of 1982 had shown arrest of the petitioner in the above case, he has not cited the case in Crime No.136 of 2003 referred above as

an adverse case in the grounds of detention. The first respondent had even cited a murder case that took place about seven years ago, as an

adverse case, but had not chosen to cite the above case. It has now come to light that the alleged complainant is a stock witness of the police

Station. In this case he is the complainant, whereas in the second case that was registered against the petitioner by J-5, Sastry Nagar Police Station

in Cr.No.136/03, this complainant is the witness in the seizure mahazar for seizure of glass pieces, iron shrapnel, etc., from the alleged scene of

crime. This case has been cleverly avoided by the 1st respondent and not shown as an averse case, because they realised the error that the defacto

complainant in the first case is the mahazar witness in the second case. The grounds of detention has an index. A perusal of the index itself would

have exposed the evil design of the first respondent at the earliest stage, had he cited this case as an adverse case, as the petitioner would have

discovered the fact that the said Babu is the complainant in this case as well as a witness for the seizure mahazar in another case. The said defacto

complainant Babu is a witness in J.5 Sastry Nagar Police Station Cr.No.5 of 2002 now pending trial before the Fast Track Court NO.5 in

S.C.No.200/2003. He is also a witness in J.5 Sastry Nagar Police Station Cr.No.732 of 2001 now pending trial before the Fast Track Court

No.4 in S.C.No.263 of 2003.

(iv) The first respondent would now state that the defacto complainant in J.6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Cr.No.138/03 had stated that the

petitioner is not the person who assaulted him and hence the case has been closed as undetected. It is not known as to why the 1st respondent had

not verified the identity of the petitioner before showing him arrest in this case. However, the defacto complainant has specifically stated in his

complaint that the person who assaulted him had stated that he is Selvam @ Selvaperunthagai of Viduthalai Siruthaigal. In that case some one had

impersonated the petitioner and had assaulted the defacto complainant. The police should add 416 IPC and further investigate the case, instead of

referring it as Undetected. It would be clear that the 1st respondent has referred this case, since he realised the error that the defacto complainant

is a witness in the second case, registered against the petitioner and wanted to bury this fact.

(v) If the defacto complainant himself had stated that the petitioner is not the person who assaulted him one another pertinent question arises as to

how the petitioner in his confession statement could have confessed to the above offence. If the petitioner is not involved in the commission of the

said offence, how that he had admitted to the same. This shows the falsity of the recording of the confession by the 1st respondent to suit his

convenience and comfort. The 1st respondent had gone to the extent of recording the confession of one Palanivel, who was arrested along with the

petitioner, in which he also admits that the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant.

(vi) Crime No:136 of 2003 in J.5 Sastry Nagar Police Station is for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC and sec. 3 of the Explosive Substances

Act. This case was registered on 15.2.2003 on the ground that the petitioner had assaulted a Sub Inspector of Police and also used explosive

substances. It is a case of attack on police as alleged in the case. The petitioner was not arrested till 1.5.2003. The witness for the alleged seizure

of the glass pieces, iron shrapnel, news papers etc., is one Babu, who is a stock witness of the said police station.

(vii) Crime No: 277 of 2003 of R.4 Pondy Bazaar Police Station has been registered on 15.3.2003 on the complaint of one Manikandan, a bunk

shop owner. The charge against the petitioner is that he demanded a sum of Rs.500/= and damaged the property of the complainant after

criminally intimidating him. The petitioner is an employee of the Reserve Bank of India, Chennai and is drawing aroundRs.15,000/= as salary. The

petitioner is also an income tax assessee for the past several years and is possessing movable and immovable properties worth several lakhs and he

is paying sizable amount as Income Tax every year. It would be unbelievable that he had demanded a paltry sum of Rs.500/= from a bunk owner,

that too going to a place 5 kilometers away from his residence.

(viii) Even assuming for a moment that the petitioner had committed the above four crimes it is not known as to why the petitioner was not arrested

even though he was very much available in the city and had not absconded.

(ix) On 10.2.2003, 24.2.2003, 10.3.203, 7.4.2003 and 28.4.2003 i.e., after the registration of the first case in J.6, Thiruvanmiyur police Station

Crime NO.138 of 2003 on 5.2.2003, the petitioner had been attending the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai to face the trial in S.C.No.28 of

2003. The Inspector of police, J.6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station or the Inspector of police R.4, Pondy Bazaar Police Station could have secured

him before the last case was registered i.e., on 1.5.2003. It is pertinent to note that the Sub Inspector of police, J.5 Sastri Nagar Police Station or

the Inspector of Police J.5 Sastri Nagar Police Station could have secured him before the last case was registered i.e., on 1.5.2003. The Police

would have come to know that the said murder case is pending trial in the Sessions Court, but it is not known as to why the second respondent

had not nabbed the petitioner while he was attending the court on the above said dates. This itself would prove that the respondents were

registering case after case behind the back of the petitioner and at last after illegally detaining him on 30.4.2003 registered the last and fourth case

and detained him under Act 14 of 1982.

(x) In Cr.No:451 of 2003 (Crl.O.P.No:3446/04) which has been registered u/s 307 IPC and Sec. 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, on the

complaint of one Nandakumar, the alleged defacto complainant in the case, had come forward to voluntarily give a statement before the learned VI

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai who had recorded the same u/s 164 Cr.P.C. On 6.6.2003, in which he had stated that the Police have

forced him to give a false complaint against the petitioner with false representation and that he had not sustained any injuries as alleged. The said

defacto complainant at a later point of time sent a letter to the Director of Medical Services, Chennai to the effect that he had not sustained any

injury, since such an incident never took place and that he was not examined by any doctor. The first informant had even gone to the extent of

offering himself to undergo any medical examination to show that there are no wounds/scars at the places mentioned in the Accident Register. This

would itself prove that the whole case is foisted against the petitioner in furtherance to the intention of detaining him after foisting 2 or 3 cases to

make him qualify for detention under Act 14 of 1982. According to the petitioner the Chennai City Police have gone to the extent of obtaining false

complaints from strangers against the petitioner and by using influence and pressure had also fabricated Accident Register as if the said complainant

had sustained injuries. It would be of interest to note that the identification mark of the alleged victim had not been noted by the Doctor in the

Accident Register which would itself prove that the alleged victim had never been examined by any doctor. The Police had even gone to the extent

of enacting a drama as if some country made bombs were recovered from the scene of crime and had sent it for diffusion and chemical analysis.

(xi) After registering all the four cases in a phased manner, the Police accomplished its intention of detaining the petitioner under Act 14 of 1982 by

a detention order dated 12.5.2003. However, the State Advisory Board had revoked the same by its order dated 27.5.2003 accepting the

contentions raised by the petitioner.

(xii) Thiru Sakthivel @ Adalarasu who was illegally detained along with the petitioner and had been released later had submitted a memorandum to

the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai.

P. Ravisekaran, Inspector of Police, (L & O) J.5, Shastry Nagar Police Station alone filed a counter in Crl.O.P.No: 3443 of 2004 and no

counter has been filed in the other three Crl.O.Ps. In the said counter the Inspector of Police stated as follows:-

(i) Crime No.136 of 2003 of J.5 Shastry Nagar Police Station was registered u/s 353 and 307 IPC and Sec. 3 of the Explosive Substances Act,

1908, on the basis of the complaint given by K. Jayaprakash, S.I of Police of the same Police Station. In the complaint it is alleged that the

complainant and one Head Constable NO.8075by name K. Samianthan of the same Police Station were on duty on 15.2.2003 evening at the

junction of IV Main road, 6th Avenue, Besanth Nagar, in front of the Police booth. At that time, a vehicle (scorpion) bearing registration number

TN-07 R.4361 was plying fast from Besant Nagar 6th Avenue, Annai Velankanni Church towards north and it stopped before the speed breaker

on the Eliots Beach opposite to Global Trust Bank (ATM) at about 21.05 hrs. On seeing this, the aforesaid Sub Inspector and the Head

Constable went near the vehicle and asked the person in the vehicle as to why he was driving in such a rash manner. The person who was sitting

near the driver was Selvaperunthagai @ Selvam, the petitioner herein, who was involved in Auditor murder case, scolded the Police officers in a

filthy language and threatened them saying that he would put an end to if he switched on the computer. When the Sub Inspector of Police and the

Head Constable tried to bring out the driver who drove the said vehicle the said said Selvaperunthagai, the petitioner herein took out a ball shaped

material from his bag and threw it towards the Sub Inspector of Police. ON seeing this, the Sub Inspector of Police just bent down and the ball

shaped material fell on the ground and exploded creating a cloud of smoke. Taking advantage of this cloud of smoke, Selvaperunthagai escaped

from the scene and in spite of chase by the said Sub Inspector the said Selvaperunthagai disappeared. After giving message to control room and

after instructing the Head Constable to be in the occurrence place, the Sub Inspector of Police came to Shastry Nagar Police station and gave a

complaint before the Inspector of Police, narrating the incident.

(ii) On the basis of the above complaint a case in J.5 Shastry Nagar P.S. Cr.No.136 of 2003 u/s 353 and 307 IPC and Sec. 3 of the Explosive

Substances Act, 1908 was registered against the petitioner herein. Investigation was taken up by the then Inspector of Police, Thiru A.R. Mohan.

During the course of investigation he examined seven witnesses. On the same day (15.2.2003), the Inspector of Police recovered the exploded

materials viz., glass pieces, grey colour torned cloth, newspapers pieces, iron pieces, small iron balls, jute pieces, sample sand etc., under mahazar

at 23.15 hours attested by witnesses Babu and Saravan. The recovered materials were sent for chemical analysis through the learned Magistrate.

The Assistant Chemical Examiner and Assistant Director, Explosive Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai after examining the above materials

has detected sulphur, carbon, aluminum, potassium, Chlorate, Sulphate and Thio-sulphate. The constituents detected in the above items are the

explosion residues of country bomb (improvised explosive device) which is a low explosive. He further opined that the country bomb when

exploded, may endanger human life. The then Inspector of Police completed the investigation and requested the District Collector for according

sanction under the Explosive Substances Act and in the meantime he was transferred.

(iii) He joined as Inspector of Police, Shastry Nagar Police Station on 21.6.2003. The District Collector, Chennai has accorded sanction for

prosecution by his proceedings in A5/63811/203, dated 5.12.2003 and the same was received on 29.12.2003.The case was charge sheeted on

2.2.2004. The Deputy Director of Prosecution approved the charge sheet on 4.2.2004 and the City Public Prosecutor approved the charge sheet

on 5.2.2004 and on the same day the final report was subnmitted before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and it was

taken on file as PRC No.19/2004. Under these circumstances, the question of transferring the case to other agency does not arise.

(iv) The petitioner has raised flimsy, frivolous and vexatious allegations in para 9 of the Crl.O.P.3443/04. Since the petitioner/accused absconded

immediately after the occurrence, the Police was not able to apprehend him. But formal arrest was effected by the then Inspector of Police, on

2.5.2003 at 16.30 hours at Central Prison, Chennai while the petitioner was in remand in connection with Thiruvanmiyur Police Station

Cr.No.451/2003 u/s 294(b) 307, 506(ii) IPC and Section . 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Further, it is the discretion of the

investigating officer to report the incident to the newspaper on the basis of the veracity o the case. The above case is a true case.

On 5.2.2004, these Criminal Original Petitions were heard and a common order was passed in the Crl.M.P.Nos.811 to 814 of 2004 by issuing

notice to respondents returnable by 17.2.2004 and if the charge sheet is not filed so far the respondents were directed not to file the charge sheet.

The case was periodically adjourned from 17.2.2004 to various dates viz., 24.2.2004, 1.3.2004, 3.3.2004, 10.3.2004 and 11.3.2004, on which

date an affidavit was filed wherein it was mentioned that charge sheet was filed on 5.2.2004 and the IX Metropolitan Magistrate has taken the

same on file as PRC.No.19 of 2004. This affidavit is alleged to have been sworn to on 16.2.2004, but was produced only on 11.3.2004 and not

on the earlier dates as mentioned earlier. Having suspected some foul-play, this court passed an order directing the Registry to call for the records

in PRC.No.19/2004 and also the registers showing the receipt of charge sheets maintained in that court. The Charge Sheet in Crime No.136 of

2003 for an offences Under Sections 353, 307 IPC and Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act of J.5, Shastry Nagar Police Station, and the PRC

Register, Local Tabal Register AFIR Register and main PRC Registers were sent for from the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet,

Chennai.

A perusal of the documents would reveal the following facts. The charge sheet in Cr.No.136 of 2003 is purported to have been filed on

5.2.2004. In the List of Documents, at page 3, the concerned Clerk has written in red ink ""memo of evidence not filed"" and it is initialed by the said

Clerk. But a perusal of the charge sheet would show that memo of evidence has been actually filed along with final report and the fact of filing

memo of evidence is mentioned in para (,) of the final report, wherein it is mentioned that statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161(3) Cr.P.C., list

of documents, and list of witnesses is enclosed. Therefore, the recording of ""memo of evidence not filed"" in red ink by a clerk on 5.2.2004 is not

factually correct. Further, the final report along with list of documents, memo of evidence from page 3 to 13 contains the court seal dated 9.2.2004

with initials of the Magistrate. It is pertinent to note that the date seal of the court dated 5.2.2004 is not found anywhere in this final report, except

the four words ""memo of evidence not filed"" and initialed by a clerk on 5.2.2004. In the first page i.e., docket sheet the same clerk who made

endorsement on 5.2.2004 has made another endorsement ""memo of evidence not filed"", checked and signed on 9.2.2004 and the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate has passed an order ""file"" and initialed on 9.2.2004. It is pertinent to note that the FIR, Plan, Mahazar, Form-95, Remand

requisition, Remand Extension Reports, Requisition to send Properties to forensic laboratory and all such documents bear the same date seal of

Court on the same day when documents were received or sent. But strangely, the final report does not bear the date seal of 5.2.2004, the date of

alleged filing of charge sheet, and on the other hand contain the seal dated 9.2.2004, even though 5.2.2004 and 6.2.2004 are working days.

Already a Manual of Notification has been issued by this Court viz., for ""GUIDANCE OF MAGISTRATES IN TAMIL NADU"" in the year

1993 itself. At page 6 of the said Guidance, under the Heading, ""INDEXING RECORDS IN PENDING CASES"" it is mentioned as follows:-

From the time the FIR is received in a Magistrate''s court, papers and documents, etc., will be sent from time to time to the court by the

investigating officer. On receipt of these papers, the Magistrate should ensure that they are promptly affixed with the date seal of his court. It is

essential that the magistrate receiving the FIR in grave crimes and in cases of death, makes a note on the FIR under his initials, the time and the

date of its receipt. This should be done notwithstanding that the FIR is received by him beyond court hours and even on a holiday. This applies

also to inquest reports and the statement of witness accompanying the inquest report.(See High Court''s Circular ROC No.2272A/74-F1, dated

24th June 1974)

When there are specific instructions to affix the date seal of the court on each and every papers received by the court and when date seals are

affixed in all other papers like remand extension request, letter to Police laboratory, plan, seizure mahazar, etc., the date seal of the court of

5.2.2004 is missing in the final report and the date seal affixed is only on 9.2.2004.

Another important aspect is that even on 9.2.2004, when the Clerk has made an endorsement ""memo of evidence not filed"", ""checked"", the

Metropolitan Magistrate has passed an order to take the case on file and allotted PRC.No.19/2004. As already mentioned, Actually list of

witnesses and memo of evidence has been enclosed along with the final report. But, with a view to make an endorsement as if the final report was

received by the court on 5.2.2004, the Clerk of the Court has made an endorsement ""memo of evidence not filed"" on 5.2.2004. The Local Tabal

Register maintained in the said court from 2.1.2004 does not contain any entry that a tabal cover containing the charge sheet was received on

5.2.2004. The PRC Register maintained in the said court, which is blank in the first three pages, has been written from 8.1.2004 on one and the

same day by the same person as admitted by one Suganthi, Junior Assistant in her explanation dated 23.3.2004 wherein she has stated that she

received the PRC Register and made all the entries in one day. In the PRC Register also the entry for receipt of charge sheet is only mentioned as

9.2.2004. In the main PRC Register maintained in the 4th Metropolitan Magistrate Court for all the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts at Saidapet,

the charge sheet is said to have been received only on 9.2.2004. In the AFIR Register maintained in the said Court from 1.1.2003 under Serial

No.193/2004, entry has been made only on 9.2.2004. In the AFIR register maintained in the IX Metropolitan Magistrate court, there is an entry

for receipt of FIR in Crime Nos. 1379/2002, 6/2003, 1378/2003, 22/2003, 27/203, 31/2003, 61/2003, 76/2003, 88/2003, 90/2003, 118/2003,

108/2003, 109/2003, 23/2003, 136/2003 upto Serial No.193/2003. I am at a loss to understand as to what happened to the FIRs of the other

crime numbers registered in the said Police Station upto Crime No.135 of 2003, whether such FIRs have been actually registered and sent to

court or whether crime numbers are kept blank for registering false cases on future dates. However, from the records received from the IX

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, it is clear that the final report dated 5.2.2004 could not have been filed on 5.2.2004, but the Inspector of Police, in

collusion with the court staff and the concerned Magistrate connived to get an endorsement from the clerk of the court as if the final report was

filed on 5.2.2004 itself, the date on which this court passed an order ""not to file charge sheet"". The Sanction order for prosecution by the Collector

of Chennai dated 5.12.2003 has been received by the first respondent even as early as on 29.12.2003. Thereafter no investigation was made by

the first respondent. About 34 days later, he has prepared the charge sheet after directions by this court ""not to file the charge sheet"".

An explanation has been called for from the Metropolitan Magistrate and concerned court staff and the Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Madras

will take separate action against the erring court staff and the Judicial Officer for the lapses on their part. Further, the Registrar General is directed

to issue suitable instructions to all the Magistrates to maintain the Registers properly to show receipt of all the papers and documents etc., promptly

affix the date seal of the concerned court and the date of receipt of such papers and documents. Failure to maintain such registers or affixing the

court date seal will facilitate committing fraud on the court by smuggling papers and documents into court with endorsement of ante-date by the

concerned staff of the court which will result in great injustice to the parties concerned.

The Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that on the prima facie lacunas appearing in the prosecution cases, the petitioner can get

acquittal after trial or quash the proceedings. But the conspiracy of the City Police to foist false cases should be exposed to prevent abuse of law

and powers and for that purpose the investigation in all these cases should be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation. The various

contentions raised by the petitioner in these four cases prima facie made out a case to show that the four cases filed against the petitioner are in all

probability, false cases, which require interference by this court.

The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that if the court wants the charge may be quashed, but oppose the transfer of cases for

investigation by CBI on the ground that consent of State Government is required and also Section 6 of the Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946, is

a bar for the Court to order CBI Investigation.

In Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Administration and Another, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

This is an unfortunate case which tends to shake the credibility of Police investigation and undermines the faith of common man in Delhi Police

which is supposed to protect life and liberty of citizens and maintain law and order. There has been serious allegations of murder by torture against

the Police and further about the haphazard manner in which the investigation against the accused Police officers was investigated with a view to

shield the guilty members of the Delhi Police.

The appellant Kashmeri Devi approached the High Court by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for transferring the

investigation of the case from the Crime Branchy of the Delhi Police to Central Bureau of Investigation. Division Bench of the High Court dismissed

the Writ Petition by its order dated 26th September, 1986. Thereupon, the appellant approached this court by means of Special Leave Petition.

We are in full agreement with the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge. As already noted during the pendency of the writ petition

before the High Court and SLP before this Court the case was further converted from 304, IPC to 323/34, IPC. Prima facie the Police has acted

in partisan manner to shield the real culprits and the investigation of the case has not been done in a proper and objective manner. We are therefore

of the opinion that in the interest of justice it is necessary to get a fresh investigation made through an independent authority so that truth may be

known.

Since according to the respondents charge sheet has already been submitted to the Magistrate we direct the trial court before whom the charge

sheet has been submitted to exercise his powers u/s 173(3) Cr.P.C., to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation for proper and thorough

investigation of the case. On issue of such direction the Central Bureau of Investigation will investigate the case in an independent and objective

manner and it will further submit additional charge sheet, if any, in accordance with law.

In 1992 (1) Crimes page 2 (Gudalure M.J. Cherian & ors Vs. Union of India & others), it has been held as follows:-

It is not necessary for us to go into various facts and circumstances mentioned by the petitioners in the writ petition in support of their

apprehensions that the investigation in the case by the Police was not fair and the victims are not likely to get justice by the authorities in the State

of Uttar Pradesh. Four accused persons have been arrested in connection with the crime and the trial against them is likely to commence. The

investigation having been completed by the Police and charge sheet submitted to the court, it is not for this court, ordinarily to reopen the

investigation specially by entrusting the same to a specialised agency like CBI. We are also conscious that of late the demand for CBI investigation

even in Police cases is on the increase. Nevertheless in a given situation to do justice between the parties and it instill confidence in the public mind

it may become necessary to ask the CBI to investigate a crime. It only shows the efficiency and the independence of the agency.

It is obvious from the affidavit of the Senior Superintendent, Police that the Nuns who are victims of the tragedy are not coming forward to identify

the culprits in an identification parade to be held by the Magistrate. The petitioners on the other hand, have alleged that the four persons who have

been set up as accused by the Police are not the real culprits and the police is asking the Sisters to accept the four arrested persons as culprits. In

the ace of these averments and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if we

direct the CBI to hold further investigation in respect of the offences committed between the night of July 12 and 13, 1990 as per the FIR lodged

at Police Station, Gajraula.

In 1993 SC 356 (Maniyeri Madhavan Vs. Inspector of Police, Cannanore), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held thus:-

We are afraid, in this case the concerned officers of the State seem to manifest a disturbing degree of indifference. We take serious note of these

lapses. Apart from considering as to which agency should now investigate this serious offence alleged against the State Police by a journalist, we

would also like the State Government to explain why Mr. Raman who was in the midst of the investigation, was relieved and sent on deputation

without the orders of this Court. In the meanwhile, the principal accused, the Superintendent of Police, has been elevated as a Deputy Inspector

General of Police. Mr. Raman himself will have to explain as to why he did not complete the investigation in time, allowed time to lapse--and

according to the petitioner, of allowing evidence to be lost with ulterior motives--and abandon the supervision of the investigation. These lapses in

the investigation seem to lend credence to the grievance of the petitioner that Mr. Raman himself being a State Police Officer has not been able to

distance himself from the interests of these accused of highhandedness against the petitioner. The Home Secretary will explain why he did not obey

the orders of this court dated 3.9.1992 which expressly directed him to file an affidavit.

We direct the Home Secretary, State of Kerala, Mr. Raman, The then Deputy Inspector general of Police (now working as Vigilance Officer of

the Hotel Corporation of India) and the Chief Secretary representing the State, to show cause why action should not be taken against them for the

lapses and omissions in obeying the orders of this court. The Home Secretary as also Mr. Raman will appear personally before this Court while the

Chief Secretary may be represented by his counsel. Notices in the appropriate form shall issue to them for proceedings of contempt of court.

In the meanwhile, the interests of the petitioner have suffered. His travails in pursuit of an honest investigation of his serious grievance against the

Police Officers of the State have not ended. He has been running from pillar to post to have his serious grievance that the Superintendent of Police

virtually destroyed his Press investigated. We think the leas that we should do to him immediately is to compensate him in terms of costs for his

being compelled to approach the court repetitively for relief. We direct the State of Kerala to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 10,000/= towards

costs, now tentatively assessed, in addition to whatever damages that may be determined finally.

Since it appears appropriate that the conduct and progress of the investigation of the case is such as not to inspire confidence, we recall the

operative part of our order dated 22.12.1989 and direct the CBI to investigate the complaint of the petitioner, complete the investigation and make

a report to this court within four months from today. All the records of the investigation including the representation filed by the petitioner before

Mr. Raman shall be transferred by the State to the CBI promptly for further action.

In R.S. Sodhi Vs. State of U.P. and others, , it has been held thus:-

We have examined the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the petition and the events that have taken place after the so-called

encounters. Whether the loss of lives was on account of a genuine on a fake encounter is a matter which has to be inquired into and investigated

closely. We, however, refrain from making any observation in that behalf; we should, therefore not be understood even remotely to be expressing

any view thereon one way or the other. We have perused the events that have taken place since the incidents but we are refraining from entering

upon the details thereof lest it may prejudice any party but we think that since the accusations are directed against the local Police personnel it

would be desirable to entrust the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI so that all concerned including the relatives of the deceased

may feel assured that an independent agency is looking into the matter and that would led the final outcome of the investigation credibility.

However, faithfully the local Police may carry out the investigation, the same will lack credibility since the allegations are against them. It is only

with that in mind that we having thought it both advisable and desirable as well as in the interest of justice entrust the investigation to the Central

Bureau of Investigation forthwith and we so hope that it would complete the investigation at an early date so that those involved in the occurrences

one way or the other may be brought to book. We direct accordingly.

In 1994 SCC (Cri) 1643, (Khedat Mazdoor Chetna Sangath Vs. State of M.P. and others), the Supreme Court observed thus:-

If dignity or honour vanishes, what remains of life?. In these circumstances, to uphold human values and to protect the rights guaranteed under the

Constitution, we hereby direct the CBI to investigate and register cases and prosecute of the officers however, high or low in the hierarchy of

administration for these serious lapses.

From the decisions cited above, it is clear that in cases where the credibility of Police investigation is shaken and undermines the faith of

common man and Police acted in a partisan manner, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to get fresh investigation made through an independent

authority so that truth may be known. In a given situation of the facts of this case, to do justice between the parties and to instill confidence in the

public mind, it has become necessary to request the Central Bureau of Investigation to make further investigation in the above four cases.

In most of the cases where Sponsoring Authorities send reports to the Detaining Authorities, under the Act 14 of 1982, very often, the ground

case or adverse cases are foisted falsely and purposely. The practice of Police Officers registering false cases, especially ""attempt to murder cases

on Police officials"" or strangers to the accused to create a ground case for the purpose of detaining persons under Act 14 of 1982 is deprecated.

Since Mr.P.Ravisekaran, the Inspector of Police, J.5, Shastry Nagar Police Station has violated the orders of this Court of ""not to file the

charge sheet"", but filed a charge sheet with ante date in connivance with the court staff of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate Court, he has

committed offence of contempt of court and the Registry is directed to issue notice to the said Inspector of Police, for contempt.

In the result, the Investigation of Cr.No.136 of 2003 of J-5, Shastri Nagar Police Station, Cr.No.138 of 2003 and Cr.No.451 of 2003 of J-6,

Thiruvanmiyur Police Station and Cr.No.277 of 2003 of R-4, Pondy Bazaar Police Station are transferred to the file of the Central Bureau of

Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Chennai for further investigation and filing a final report.

Consequently, connected Crl.M.Ps are closed.