P LAKSHMANA PERUMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL.O.P.No.5789/2004 :- This Petition is filed to quash the First Information Report registered against the Petitioner " Lakshmana Perumal in Cr.No.23/2004 of City General Crime Branch, (CGCB), Tirunelveli City, registered under offences u/s 384, 385, 506(ii) and 120B IPC. CRL.M.P.No.2250 of 2004:- This Petition is filed to stay the further investigation in Cr.No.23/2004. On 15. 12. 2004, when OP was admitted, interim stay of further investigation was granted. CRL.M.P.No.2242/2005:- This Petition is filed by the Inspector of Police, City General Crime Branch, to vacate the stay granted in CRL.M.P.No.2250/2004 on 15. 12. 2004. CRL.M.P.No.1873/2005:- This Petition is filed to permit the Petitioner G.Srinivasan, Joint Managing Director, TGIs to intervene in CRL.O.P.No.5789/2004.

(2.) GIST of the complaint which led to the registration of the case in Cr.No.23/2004 (CGCB) could briefly be stated thus:- M/s.Transworld Granite India Pvt. Ltd (in short, TGI) is a subsidiary of Western Garnet International Inc., a Canadian Company. The company's major business is mining, processing and exporting of Almandite Garnet. The Company's factory and other works are located at Tuticorin and Tirunelveli where a number of other concerns also are carrying on the same business. M/s.Transworld Granite India Pvt. Ltd. is stated to be conducting business in accordance with law, after securing licenses and permissions required from the Central and State Government Authorities. Sukumar (A-2) is the proprietor of Beach Sand Mineral Company. Without provocation from the complainant company, A-2 developed animosity towards M/s.Transworld Granite India Pvt. Ltd due to business rivalry. At the instigation of the said Sukumar, A-1 - Lakshmana Perumal, claiming to be the Secretary, Indian Industrial Mineral Producers Welfare Association, Chennai, has lodged a false complaint before the District Crime Branch against R.Srinivasan " Chairman cum Managing Director; on the basis of which, a case was registered in Cr.No.25/04, District Crime Branch, (in short, 'DCB'), Tirunelveli, u/s 124(A) and 506(ii) IPC. R.Srinivasan was arrested on 16. 8. 2004 and he was remanded to Palayamkottai jail. Complainant R.Srinivasan was threatened and coerced and was put to constant threat. By putting him in fear and coercion and harassment, (i)the company was forced to convey 34. 87 Acres located in Madavankurichi Village and Sale Deed was executed by Suriyanarayanan, General Manager of the Company, in favour of Elango " nominee of A-2 - Sukumar; (ii)Complainant was shifted to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. By putting him in constant fear and harassment and due to pressure, the Joint Managing Director G.Srinivasan (Petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1873/2005) transferred 26% shares to A-3 - Selvaraj, who is also A-2's representative. Further case of the complainant is that the case in Cr.No.25/04, DCB, was registered only at the instance of A-2 " Sukumar. Only for the purpose of putting the complainant R.Srinivasan in constant fear and threat and thereby, forcibly getting conveyance of property and surrender of 26% of the shares, a false case was registered against R.Srinivasan. Alleging extortion, threat and false criminal accusation that he was forced to convey the immovable property of 34. 87 Acres and transfer 26% of shares. Complainant R.Srinivasan lodged the complaint before the CGCB on the basis of which case in Cr.No.23/2004 has been registered.

(3.) JOINT Managing Director " R.Srinivasan has filed Crl.M.P.No.1873/2005 seeking permission to intervene. The learned counsel Mr.P.H.Pandian has submitted that the exparte interim stay would hamper the further investigation in the case where serious allegations are levelled. Submitting that the victim is a forgotten individual in the criminal jurisprudence and the interest of complainant is to be protected, the learned counsel prayed for permitting the further investigation to be proceeded with. Placing reliance upon AIR 1992 SC 604, the learned counsel has submitted that the investigation being exclusive province of the police, the Investigating Agency cannot be prevented from proceeding with the further investigation.