G SUSAN REBECCA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above petition has been filed to transfer the petitioner's complaint dated 28. 08. 2007 from the file of the second respondent to the file of the third respondent herein, in the interests of justice, directing the third respondent to register a First Information Report on the basis of the said complaint dated 28. 08. 2007, investigate the matter and file a final report within the time frame as stipulated by this Court.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of the property at No. 18, Kamaraj Nagar, Palaripet Village, Avadi, Chennai-71 measuring about 1960 sq. ft. The petitioner came to know that one Mr. Rajasekaran had purchased the property from the accused for a consideration of Rs. 9,20,000/- and the said Rajasekar prevented the petitioner from entering the property and threatened to kill her, if she enters the property. On further enquiries, the petitioner came to know that the accused had created forged and fabricated documents to the effect that that the petitioner had sold the property to the accused and thereafter the said accused in collusion and connivance with said Rajasekar, the Sub Registrar of Avadi and other officials of Avadi Sub Registrar's office had created false documents and transferred the property in the name of Mr. Rajasekar. In respect of the above said criminal acts, the petitioner preferred a complaint to the first respondent on 28. 08. 2007, which was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police of Avadi who in turn forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Avadi Range. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Avadi Range thereafter forwarded to the second respondent.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the second respondent totally disregarded the complaint of the defacto complainant as forwarded by the first respondent but he dictated a fresh complaint to the petitioner wherein the original averments contained in the complaint dated 28. 8. 2007 were omitted and when the petitioner protested, the second respondent threatened, coerced and forced the petitioner to write a fresh complaint and sign the same under duress and coercion. It is the further case of the petitioner that the second respondent had registered the case on the second complaint which, according to the petitioner, was forcibly obtained from her.