KARUPPASWAMY Vs. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHENNAI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner praying to order change of investigation of the case from the Inspector of police, Pal -ladam police Station, Coimbatore to C.B.I.

(2.) A complaint was given by Maravathy Gounder on 30.11.1997, at about 8.30 a.m., which was registered under section 363, 307 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations are to the following effect: - There was a feud between Kadukkayyan and Dhamodarasamy, over the sale and purchase of "Manal Thottam'. The said Kadukkayyan approached former M.L.A., V.S. Palanisamy to help him to enjoy the said property without any interference from Dharmo -drasamy Naicker. He paid Rs.50 lakhs for the same. He also gave a jeep to him. The henchmen of Dhamodarasamy Naicker indulged in acts of rioting. The said occurrence had resulted in the registering of a case in 'Avinasi -palayam Police Station. Later a lease deed was obtained 'Benami' in the name of one Thanga -muthu Gounder, a nominee of former M.L.A. VS. Palanisamy. The said lease deed was later cancelled. The former M.L.A. N.S. Palanisamy has been making frequent demands upon Kadukkayyan. Kadukkayyan refused to make any further payment to him. Therefore, the former M.L.A. V.S. Palaniswamy joined hands with Dhamodarasamy Naicker and was threatening Kadukkayyan. Hence, an injunction was obtained in Civil Court against Dhamodarasamy Naicker and others restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property by Kadukkayyan. While so, on 29.11.1997, at about 10:A.M., in the said field, the complainant and others were carrying on agricultural operations. At that time, Sembalayam, Govin -daswamy, his relative Muthukrishnan, Mayilsamy, the sons of Dhamodarasamy Naicker viz., Ramakrishnan and Rajendran, and Thangamuthu Gounder with 20 rowdy elements came there, with a view to cause disturbance and rioting. The police, who came there on information, sent them away. On 30.11.1997, at about 8 AM., Kadukkayyan's son Muthusamy, the son of the complainant Chandrasekaran complainant were proceeding to Palladam to see the advocate. Muthusamy was going by a motor -cycle, while Thambu. the complainant and his son Chandrasekar followed him in a car. When they were nearing Muthukumarasamy temple on Kangeyam Road, the jeep belonging to Govindasamy bearing Reg.No.TN -39 -H -3548 went past the car. It was driven by Muthukrishnan. Govin -dasamy was sitting in the front while there were others sitting in the rear seat. Near Pal -ladam -Panappalai, the jeep driven by Muthukrishnan knocked down the motor -cycle. Muthusamy, who was driving the motor -cycle fell down. Then Govindasamy, the driver of the jeep, Muthukrishnan, Mayilsamy, advocate Ramakrishnan, Rajendran, lessee Thangamuthu Gounder and two other persons got down from the jeep. The complainant and his son got down from the car. Govindasamy was having an aruval in his hand saying 'Kaduk -kan -payyd' (Son of Kadukkan) 'only if you are done away with, Naicker will get the field', wielded the aruval and attempted to cut Muthusamy. Muthusamy evaded the blow and ran, and at that time, advocate Ramarkrishnan beat him with a stick and Muthusamy fell down. Mayilsamy stated 'take this fellow in the jeep. Let us go to our leader V.S.S. Palanisamy and finish the job there'. It was 8:30 A.M. then. The jeep turned back on Tharapu -ram Road. The complainant and his son chased the jeep for about 3 kms. But they could not catch up with the same. Then they went back to the place of occurrence. The motor -cycle driven by Muthusamy was lying damaged.. The former, M.L.A. V.S. Palanisamy, his men especially Govindasamy and Mayilsamy were frequently threatening Kadukkayyan stating that he must surrender to Dhamodrasamy Naicker and otherwise, his family will be done away with. It is at the instigation and instructions of the former M.L.A. Palanisamy, Muthusamy was abducted in the jeep.

(3.) LEARNED Government Advocate took notice of the same. No written counter is filed. Learned Government Advocate submitted that investigation has been done and that final report has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam against 9 persons under sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 364, 309, 109 and 149 of I.P.C., and therefore, the allegation made by the complainant that the respondents are not interested in pursuing the investigation of this case is not correct. It appears that of the 9 accused, the 4th accused Advocate Ramak -rishnan and the 9th accused V.S.Palanisamy have not been so far touched by the police. The 4th accused is said to be a lawyer and the 9th accused is the former M.L.A. It is stated that they are absconding.