S KUMARESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.O.P.No.6788/2003 has been filed praying to quash the investigation by the 2nd respondent concerned in Crime No.49/2002 on the file of the first respondent as illegal and contrary to law. Crl.O.P.No.24026/2003 has been filed praying to set aside the subsequent investigation made by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to the order of the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli dated 22.1.2003, in Crime No.49/2002 on the file of the 1st respondent.

(2.) On a perusal of the materials made available on record what comes to be known is that originally a case was registered against the petitioner on 17.6.2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420,468 I.P.C., on the allegation that the petitioner had taken away 18 signed cheques valuing about Rs.2,10,00,000/- along with booklet, consisting of 32 cheques, which was entrusted for disbursement of salary to the employees to the petitioner by the petitioner's step brother; that the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application before this Court and this Court has ordered the same with the condition that the petitioner should deposit all the cheques which are in his possession and other 2 cheques which were already presented and subsequently dishonoured; that the petitioner preferred S.L.P.No.2812/2002 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the petitioner to get an order before the concerned Court for variation of the conditions imposed on him; that the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application before this Court and this Court has passed an order of Anticipatory Bail deleting the earlier conditions imposed on him; that on 20.8.2002, this Court imposed some other conditions along with the earlier conditions, further giving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court to seek appropriate directions depending upon the further developments in the investigation. It further comes to be known that the petitioner moved two applications for relaxing the conditions imposed on him; that this Court by its order made in Crl.M.P.No.8717/2002 and Crl.M.P.No.13020/2003 has dismissed the same on the ground that the investigation is pending; that the petitioner came to know that the investigation does not disclose any prima facie case but the first respondent has not filed the final report and hence he has filed two applications before this court in Crl.O.P.Nos.994 and 3271 of 2003, one for relaxing the entire conditions and the other for directing the 1st respondent to file final report; that in the meantime the 1st respondent informed this Court that the case has been transferred to the 2nd respondent due to administrative reasons by the Superintendent of Police; that insofar as Crl.M.P.No.994/2003 is concerned, this Court has granted time to complete the investigation by the 2nd respondent and insofar as Crl.M.P.No.3271/2003 is concerned, this Court has dismissed the same as infructuous; that the case of the petitioner is that if really the case had been transferred as per the report of the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli on 19.10.2002, the 1st respondent would not have conducted any investigation subsequent to the transfer; that for transferring a criminal case from one police to another, prior consent must be obtained from the Inspector General of Police and also approval from the Director General of Police in cases inasmuch as case punishable under Section 420 IPC wherein the value of the transaction exceeds Rs.25 lakhs; that the report of the Superintendent of Police filed in Crl.M.P.994/2003 does not disclose the completion of the formalities; that there is no truth in the contention of the 1st and 2nd respondents and the Superintendent of Police; that they act as per the instructions of the defacto complainant; that the 2nd respondent also sent a notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. calling upon the petitioner to appear for investigation on 2.3.2003; that the ultimate object of the respondents 1 and 2 is to keep the matter pending under the guise of investigation though no case has been made out; that Crl.O.P.6788/2003 was admitted by this Court and the same was posted for filing counter but, the petitioner has not filed any stay petition; that in the meantime the 2nd respondent for making the above said original application as infructuous, in a hurried manner completed the investigation in spite of the fact that the said investigation itself is subjudice before this Court and contrary to the propriety, the 2nd respondent had acted upon and hence the subsequent investigation proceedings, after admission of the said Crl.O.P. is being challenged and prayed for setting aside the same.

(3.) During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitione would lay emphasis on the facts pleaded in the petition and would reiterate the same facts and circumstances brought forth in the above Criminal Original Petition. He would also cite the following judgments viz.: