V R CHELLADURAI Vs. T RAJASEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by 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 the Bhoothapandy Police Station, the petitioner herein has filed the above writ petition.

(2.) FACTS, in brief, which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are: petitioner claims that in the course of business transaction with the first respondent, the first respondent owes certain amount due and payable to the petitioner and with an ulterior motive of avoiding the repayment of the said amount and to defraud and cheat the petitioner, he came out a story of theft of blank cheque leaves and title deeds from the side-box of his motor-cycle and also lodged a complaint in that regard with the jurisdictional police. The first respondent also approached the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate with a complaint seeking to forward the complaint under Sec. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was followed to the Inspector of Police of the jurisdictional police station, based on which a complaint was registered in Crime No. 597/2004 for the alleged offences under Secs. 379, 109 read with Sections 403, 411, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent not being satisfied with the investigation done by the jurisdictional police, sent a representation dated 5-4-2005 to respondents 2 to 4 herein, seeking transfer of investigation. The first respondent had also filed a writ petition, W. P. No. 14781 of 2005, seeking a Writ of Mandamus for transfer of investigation to the file of the fourth respondent herein. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, directing the third respondent herein to consider the representation dated 5-4-2005 and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks. The third respondent, in compliance of the said order, considered the representation given by the first respondent and passed the impugned order.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the first respondent had suppressed certain necessary and vital facts in his representation dated 5-4-2005 as also in the writ petition filed before this Court. Learned senior counsel submitted that after investigation, the Inspector of Police of the jurisdictional police station has referred the complaint as false and closed the case as "mistake of fact" as early as on 26-2-2005 and a report to that effect was also filed before the Judicial Magistrate, with a copy to the first respondent. The first respondent had conveniently suppressed these facts in his representation as well as in the writ petition filed by him.