M. Thomas vs State of Tamil Nadu

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—M. Thomas, the Petitioner herein has filed this application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the order of transfer of the case from the file of the Inspector of Police, R2 Kodambakkani Police Station, the Respondent herein to the file of the C.B., C.I.D. He would further request through the separate affidavit for necessary protection to the Petitioner and his family members to safeguard his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property at No. 77, Periyar Pathai, Choolaimedu, Chennai, in the light of the order of temporary injunction granted by this Court in C.S. No. 900 of 1998 filed by the Petitioner.

The case of the Petitioner is as follows:

(a) The Petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of 5,375 sq. fit of land bearing new Door No. 77, Periyar Pathai, Choolaimedu. He entered into an agreement for sale of the property 369 sq. ft of land out of 5.375 sq. ft to one T.V. Mani. Subsequently , through the said Mani, a further agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and one Madan Chand Singhvi, the Managing Partner of Developers and Promoters Company. The Petitioner received a sum of Rs. 65,660/- by way of sale consideration. The said Developers took possession of 420 sq. ft of land instead of 368 sq. ft. The Petitioner was requiring the said Developers to surrender the excess land. But, in that excess area, the Developers constructed a compound wall in spite of his protest. Hence, the Petitioner did not execute the sale deed in favour of the said Developers.

(b) On 12.9.1998 at about 3.00 a.m., the said Madan Chand Singh with 15 rowdy elements came with weapons and pistol and trespassed into the house of the Petitioner. They misbehaved with the wife and daughters of the Petitioner. They were threatened with knife and other weapons. Thereafter, they were forcibly taken in the van to another house. They were put inside the room. The said Madan Chand Singhvi forced the Petitioner to sign in blank papers. The rowdies attempted to molest the wife and daughters. The Petitioner and his wife refused to sign the papers. Hence, the Petitioner and his wife signed the blank papers. They were kept in the same room on 12.9.1998 and 13.9.1998.

(c) On 14.9.1998 the said Madan Chand Singhvi came along with the rowdies carrying weapons and took them in a vehicle to Sub registrar''s Office, Kodainbakkam, At the time of registration, the Petitioner and his wife objected. They were again taken to the van and attempted to molest the wife and daughters in the presence of the Petitioner. Finding no other alternative, they came back to the Sub Registrar''s Office and the document was registered. Then the said Madan Chand Singhvi took the Petitioner and others and dropped them at Besant Nagar.

(d) Thereafter, they came to know that the house and two shops in the front portion belonging to the Petitioner and the portions occupied by his tenants were demolished by the said Madan Chand Singhvi and his men with the help of a Bulldozer. They had also taken away cash, jewels and other household articles from the house of the Petitioner and the portions of the tenants.

(e) With these allegations, he gave a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodambakkam Police Station, the Respondent. Initially, the Sub Inspector of Police refused to register. Then, at the intervention of Joint Commissioner of Police, the case was registered.

(f) Thereafter, some persons were arrested and some of the articles were recovered and the same were deposited in the Court. Those articles were returned to the Petitioner on application.

(g)He also filed a suit in C.S. No. 900 of 1998 before this Court for declaration and for consequential injunction restraining the said Madan Chand Singhvi and his men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property above mentioned.

(h)At this stage, it was felt that the investigation has not been conducted properly and police did not take steps to recover other articles which are more valuable, the Petitioner filed this application requesting for the transfer of the case from the local police to the C.B., C.I.D.

The Petitioner in the affidavit has stated that the Assistant Commissioner of the Range is now sending feelers to the Petitioner asking him to settle the matter with the said Madan Chand Singhvi.

The counter affidavits have been filed by one Veerapandian, who initially registered the case and Nandakumar, who was the Assistant Commissioner of Police at the relevant period and one Jagatheeswaran, the present Inspector of Police, R8 Vadpalani Police Station. According to them, the investigation was fairly conducted, the main accused were arrested and the properties were recovered and as such, there is no reason for the transfer of investigation.

I heard the counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent.

Originally, the case was registered by R2 Kodambakkam Police Station. Veerapandian, who was then Inspector of Police in R2 Kodambakkam Police Station, has filed the counter affidavit giving the details of the registration of the case and investigation.

It is specifically contended through the affidavit by the Petitioner that initially the police did not take action, then at the intervention of Joint Commissioner of Police, some of the accused were arrested and only some articles were recovered.

In the counter affidavit, Mr. Veerapandian, the present Deputy Superintendent of Police of Ennore would state that the case was registered and the main accused Madan Chand Singhvi was arrested on the same day. Subsequently, one Natarajan took up the investigation in this case. There is no counter affidavit on behalf of the said Natarajan in regard to the investigation conducted by him. The former Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, T. Nagar, Range, the present Deputy Superintendent of Police of Cuddalore would specifically state that he did not send any feeler to the Petitioner for compromising the matter.

It is seen from the records that the case was transferred from R2 Kodambakkam Police Station to R8 Vadapalani Police Station. Accordingly, Mr. Jagatheeswaran, Inspector of Police, R8 Vadapalani Police Station took up investigation and filed the counter giving the details of the investigation. It is also seen that further investigation has not been done in this case, since this Court by the order dated 16.8.1999 in this application stayed the further investigation.

On going through the case diary and the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondent police, it is clear that the occurrence giving the details of the happenings which is so shocking took place in three places. In the early morning, according to the complainant, the accused persons took the law into their own hands and trespassed into the house of the Petitioner and forcibly took him and his wife and children in a van. At that time, the wife was attempted to be molested. Even in the room where they were confined for two days, both the wife and daughters were harassed by the rowdies at the instance of the said Madan Chand Singhvi in order to get the signature of the Petitioner and his wife. Even in the Sub Registrar''s Office, the same thing happened.

Though it is stated in the counter that 177 articles have been recovered, the other 32 items as mentioned in the additional affidavit dated 29.3.2001 like jewels etc., which are more valuable have not yet been recovered. Some of the accused were released on anticipatory bail.

Admittedly, the tenants were forcibly evicted and the portions of the building were demolished. In the observation mahazar also, it is stated that the portion of the building was demolished. But, it is seen from the case diary that the investigating officer had written the same but bulldozer was not used.

Though some tenants and other neighbouring witnesses have been examined giving the details of the demolition, the investigation officer has not cared to examine the persons, who knew about the occurrence took place in the house where the Petitioners and others confined for two days and the persons, who knew about the occurrence took place inside and outside of the Sub Registrar''s Office.

Under those circumstances, especially when it is alleged by the Petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner of Police of the range was trying to settle the matter, I am of the view that the investigation has to be handed over to the C.B., C.I.D., so that they may effectively investigate further, arrest the other accused and recover other properties, to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the C.B., C.I.D., is directed to take up further investigation in Crime No. 2159/98 on the file of R2 Kodambakkam Police Station, and continue the investigation in a fair and proper manner and file the final report before the Court concerned as expeditiously as possible, in the light of the observation made above.

The typed set shows that the Petitioner has obtained interim injunction in respect of the property in question from this Court in O.A. No. 780 of 1998 against Madan Chand Singhvi and others. It is also seen from one of the documents filed in the typed set that one Veeramani, Chennai sent a threatening letter to the Petitioner asking him to hand over the possession of the property to Madan Chand Singhvi or else, he would be murdered.

In view of the fact situation, it would be proper to direct the Commissioner of Police to give police protection to the life of the Petitioner and his family members and also for the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property at Door No. 77, Periyar Pathi, Choolaimedu.

With these observations, the petition is allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 6700 of 1999 is closed.