P S CHELLAMUTHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL.O.P.No.21711 of 2007 is filed praying to quash the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court (TNPID Act) at Chennai. CRL.O.P.No.35339 of 2007 is filed to quash the entire proceedings at the stage of investigation in Crime No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvannamalai.

(2.) THE petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.21711 of 2007 have contended in the petition as follows:-One V.S. Velliyangiri lodged a police complaint dated 29.2.2000, alleging non payment of fixed deposit amount of Rs.25,000/= on its maturity. Following the said complaint, numerous other depositors started lodging similar complaints before the Inspector of Police EOW-II. THE respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW-II registered the complaints for the offence under section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) (for short TNPID) Act, 1997 and under section 120(B), 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. THE properties of the petitioners ranked as A3, A4 and A6 and that of the other family members were attached by way of interim attachment order dated 7.8.2001. THE respondent laid a charge sheet before the Special Court constituted in terms of section 6 of the said Act at Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.S.No.31 of 2001 for the aforementioned offences. Now, the case stands posted to 25.7.2007 for framing of charges. THE petitioners challenged the validity of the TNPID Act, but, the same was dismissed by a common order made in a batch of cases in W.P.No.7755 of 2006 by the Full Bench of this court on 2.3.2007. THE entire investigation culminated in filing of final report by the respondent and the cognizance taken based thereon by the Special Court are ex facie illegal. THE Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW-II, Coimbatore is not the competent authority. THE institution of prosecution is contrary to the scheme, procedure and mandatory requirements contained in the TNPID Act, 1997. THE said Act enacted for the purpose of protecting the deposits made by the public in the financial institutions has overriding effect on other laws, customs or usage which are in force in terms of section 14 of the Act. THE Government is the competent authority to find out prima facie whether any offence was committed to attract the mischief of the Special Act. THE competent authority contemplated under the TNPID Act has been empowered to effect compounding of offences either at pre-prosecution stage or after institution of prosecution case. THE competent authority has been directed to render assistance to the Special Public Prosecutor in conducting the case in the Special Court. THErefore, the competent authority alone has got power to institute prosecution and to play the role of prosecutor in trying the offences under the Special Act. THEre is no express or implied provision in the TNPID Act conferring power on the police official either to investigate or to institute prosecution. By G.O. Ms.No.250 Home Department dated 21.3.2002, the Additional Commissioner for Land Administration was appointed as competent authority. THE respondent, without having any jurisdiction or power under the Special Act, has registered the First Information Report and investigated the case and submitted final report before the Special Court. THErefore, the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.21711 of 2007 pray for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2001 on the file of the Special Court, TNPID Act at Chennai.

(3.) THE respondent in Crl.O.P.No.35339 of 2007 filed counter stating that the complaint received by the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District was entrusted to the respondent for the purpose of registration of the case and investigation of the matter. THE witnesses examined by the respondent have stated that they deposited their money in Shri.Dhanalakshmi Finance. THE District Registrar of the Registration Department has given statement to the effect that the petitioners herein also were partners of Shri.Dhanalakshmi Finance. THE investigation would further reveal that the petitioners continued to be partners in the said Finance Company. No record is available to show that the petitioners resigned from the partnership firm. THErefore, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition in Crl.O.P.No.35339 of 2007 seeking quashment.