E V VASAVAN Vs. DHANAPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/defacto complainant was approached by one Sathiaraj, a land broker, with an offer for sale of a valuable property in Mettupalayam, Coimbatore, and the petitioner, who had a proposal to purchase land at Coimbatore, expressed his desire and, as per the understanding, on 17.12.2008, proceeded to Coimbatore in his car after drawing a cash of Rs.25,00,000/- from his Bank Account operated with State Bank of India, Ambattur, Chennai, to meet the land owner as well as Broker Sathyaraj for payment of the advance. At Kovilpalayam Bus Stand, the petitioner met the Broker and while he was talking to him, the Inspector of Police attached to Kovilpalayam Police Station ie., main accused/first respondent herein, came towards them and forcibly snatched the car key and took away the car wherein the cash of Rs.25 lakhs was kept, asking them to come to the police station in Taxi. At the police Station, R-1 threatened the petitioner to sign in blank papers else a case would be registered as if he carried unaccounted money. He further threatened that if he demands back the money, he would see to it that a false case is foisted for handling of counterfeit notes and black money. THE persuasive pleadings of the petitioner turned to deaf ears and on coming to know that the broker and the Inspector of Police already conspired to rob the money brought by the petitioner, on the next day ie., on 18.12.2008, the occurrence was reported to the Superintendent of Police attached to Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Directorate (DVAC). THE Superintendent, DVAC, conducted a probe and the telephonic conversation recorded brought to light the involvement of the Inspector of Police. Under such circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, DVAC, informed the D.I.G., Coimbatore, of the crime committed by the first respondent, whereupon, the DIG directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, to proceed against the Inspector of Police. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner of Police inquired the main accused and during the search conducted, Rs.4 lakhs came to be recovered from him. On physical search, Rs.99,000/- was found concealed in his under garment.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Investigating Officer is none else than the superior officer under whom the accused Inspector worked. Though the case has been taken on file on 18.12.2008, two other accused involved in the case are not yet arrested and the balance money also not recovered. Further, the money which has been recovered from the main accused has not been deposited with court. The main accused came out on bail within 10 days thereafter, a petition to cancel the bail has been filed, whereupon, he was re-arrested and, pending investigation, subsequently, he was enlarged on bail. Since the accused worked as an Inspector of Police, still he wields influence otherwise, the balance money could have been recovered by this time and the co-accused apprehended. If the investigation is allowed to continue with the present Investigating Officer, undoubtedly, the process would not proceed in the right direction and therefore, necessary direction may be issued in the interests of justice.

(3.) PETITION is ordered accordingly.