T RAJASEKAR Vs. V R CHELLADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.7.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.36291 of 2005. The writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner, first respondent herein for quashing the order dated 14.7.2005 passed by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai third respondent herein directing the transfer of investigation in PS Cr.No.597/2004 on the file of Bhoothapandy Police Station to the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime Branch.), Kanyakumari District. By the order under appeal, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order of the Director General of Police was quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are few and may be shortly stated. On 16.9.2004, the appellant filed a complaint with Boothapandy Police Station alleging theft of blank cheque leaves and title deeds from the side box of his motor cycle on 14.9.2004. He also lodged a complaint in that regard with the bank concerned. A paper publication was also caused by the appellant in Dina Thanthi through his advocate on 18.10.2004. In the meantime, certain cheques were presented to the bank for encashment and the appellant again gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Boothapandy Police Station on 23.10.2004. THE appellant thereafter filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy against the first respondent and two others, which was returned by the learned Magistrate on 08.11.2004 with a liberty to lodge a complaint before the Superintendent of Police. Subsequently, the appellant represented his complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Boothpandy on 16.11.2004. THE learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the Inspector of Police, Boothapandy Police Station. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.597/2004 came to be registered on 18.11.2004 for the offences under Sections 379, 109 r/w 403, 411, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. THE complaint was investigated by the Inspector of Police, Boothapandy Police Station, who closed the case as mistake of fact and filed his report before the learned Magistrate on 21.4.2005. In the meantime, a representation was made by the appellant to the respondents 2, 3 and 4 seeking investigation of his complaint by any superior officer of police. THE appellant also moved a writ petition in this Court being W.P.No.14781 of 2005 seeking direction for transfer of investigation. By order dated 29.4.2005 the learned single Judge directed the second respondent therein namely, the Director General of Police to consider and dispose of the appellants representation. THE writ appeal filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court observing that the order passed by the learned single Judge was only a direction to the authorities concerned to consider the representation seeking for transfer of investigation. By virtue of the impugned order passed by the Director General of Police, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation in Crime No.597/04 and ultimately filed the charge sheet against eight persons before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi. In the meantime, the first respondent filed the present writ petition which came to be finally allowed by the learned single Judge. We may also mention that the first respondent filed a complaint against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which process came to be issued. THE appellant has filed a writ petition for quashing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and those proceedings are pending before the Madurai Bench of this Court.

(3.) WE have called for the original records and also verified the same. Upon verification, it is seen that though the final report of the investigating officer was dated 25.2.2005, the same was filed before the Judicial Magistrates court only on 21.4.2005. In the meantime, the investigating officer retired on 28.2.2005. It is also seen that the learned Magistrate did not issue any notice at all to the appellant/complainant nor there was any order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is further seen from the record that notice of the final report was given to the appellant in terms of Form- 95, but the same was stated to be returned with an endorsement that the appellant has refused to receive the report.