K C PALANISAMY MANAGING DIRECTOR CHERAN HOLDING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come up with the present Petition seeking to direct further investigation of the case in Cr. No. 23 of 2005 on the file of the 2nd respondent through the Inspector of Police, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Shastari Bhavan, Chennai.

(2.) For better appreciation of the issue having regard to the prayer sought for, the factual aspects involved are projected below in a compact manner. Based on a complaint dated 19.3.2005, preferred by the petitioner with the second respondent herein, a case in Crime No. 23 of 2005 was registered on 26.4.2005 as against one Siddartha Ray and 13 others, for offences under Sections 120(b) read with 420, 465, 468,471 and 478 IPC. and pending investigation therein, the petitioner was arrested on 31.1.2008 with reference to Crime Nos. 776 of 2007 and 54 of 2008 on the file of C.C.B., Chennai. While so, by order dated 10.3.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in M.P. Nos. 677 and 678 of 2008, the petitioner was granted bail with one of the conditions that he should stay at Nagercoil, and report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, daily at 10 a.m. until further orders and later, during May, 2008, the condition to stay at Nageroil was modified and the petitioner was directed to stay at Dindigul and appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. On 20.5.2008, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, E.O.W.II, Chennai, issued summons for appearance of the petitioner before him on the same day at 12 Noon in respect of Cr. No. 23 of 2005 and it was replied that the petitioner could not appear on account of the condition imposed by the Court to stay at Dindigul and appear before the CJM daily and that he would appear as soon as the condition was relaxed. Subsequently, another summon was issued by the very same officer on 29.5.2008 for appearance of the petitioner within five days from the date of the summons. The petitioner sent a telegram, dated 2.6.2008, stating that since he was complying with the conditional order passed by the Court, he could not make personal appearance before the officer and that the case should not be concluded without affording reasonable opportunity to him. However, the Deputy Superintendent of Police proceeded with the enquiry and filed final report on 13.6.2008, referring the case as civil in nature.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by adverting to a common order passed by this Court on 22.2.2007 in Crl. O.P. No. 31375 of 2006 and two other petitions, whereby, after considering the plea of the petitioner seeking transfer of investigation to the CBI from the file of the Economic Offences Wing No. II and rejecting the same, a direction was issued to respondent No.4 therein, shown as 1st respondent in the present case viz., the Additional Superintendent of Police, EOW-II, Chennai, to proceed with the investigation and file final report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order; would submit that, in spite of such specific direction, investigation was not taken up by the Additional Superintendent of police (ADSP) but by an officer below such rank i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), who throughout the course, pursued the investigation with a bias and partisan attitude towards the petitioner, denying the opportunity to project the case and present the documentary materials in support of his claim. According to the learned counsel, the way in which summons came to be served upon the petitioner in respect of the complaint lodged by him while he was complying with the condition imposed by the Court, confining his movements with a particular place, and the haste with which final report came to be filed would go to show the unfair approach of the Investigating Officer towards him and further, the specific direction of this Court for investigation by the ADSP has been purposely flouted; hence, this is a fit case for ordering further investigation preferably to CBI.