Maris Devotta vs The Superintendent of Police and The Inspector of Police

G. Rajasuria, J.—This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to reinvestigate the matter in Cr. No. 49 of 2005, on the file of

the second respondent and also register a case as against the said Sooaiah, Antony, Therasa, Rose, Sahayaraj and Selvaraj and probe into other

facts.

The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition as stood exposited from the records and from the arguments of the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, would run thus:

The case in Cr. No. 49 of 2005 was registered u/s 420 and 120B I.P.C and the second respondent took up the investigation; in the course of

which, five persons wee roped in namely Memolin, Ingrid, Ramasamy, Saroja and Thamasin and investigating into the matter. In the mean while,

the petitioner Maris Devotta one of the victims filed this petition complaining that despite registration of the F.I.R, the police made only

pococurante investigation which is not worthy as per law. The lukewarm progress done by the police would in no way satisfy the requirements of

the petitioner as the petitioner lost Rs. 18 lakhs in the transaction, but the police is claiming to have recovered only a few lakhs of rupees; the

amounts which are the subject matter of the crime were ploughed into various firms and organisations, but the police have not stretched out its his

tentacles to identify those firms and organisations and cull out the assets and produce them before the Court.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also would refer to the special enactment viz., the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in

Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 and the expectation of the petitioner is that the police also should invoke it and do the needful.

The learned Counsel for the interveners namely, S. Soosaiah, S. Rose, S. Selvaraj in M.P. No. 2 of 2007, would contradict and gainsay the

allegations/averments in the petition as well as the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contend that the case was not one

booked under the special enactment; furthermore, as per Section 5 of the Act, only the finance company is liable and not others. He would also

proceed to highlight by placing reliance on the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 3645 of 2005 dated 27.04.2006 and the said petition was

dismissed with the following finding:

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submits that petition enquiry was conducted by the respondent police and it has been

closed.

Recording the above submission, this petition is dismissed.

As such the learned Counsel for the interveners in M.P. No. 2 of 2007, would develop his argument that what is closed should not be re-

opened and what is settled, should not be unsettled at the instance of the petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the interveners in M.P. No. 1 of 2007 namely, Anthony Swamy, would submit that he himself is a victim, but presently,

the petitioner is trying to rope him as an accused.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit a copy of the report of the Inspector of Police, and argue relating to the steps

so far taken by the police and the following are the properties attached at the instance of the police:

Sl. Owner of the Property Details of the property Value of the Property

No.

1 Ingreetta (A5) W/o Memolin House Land 970.687 S.F with

V. Royan, Thoothukudi building at Boldenpuram 2nd

Street, Thoothukudi. This

property has been mortgaged to

one Chinnathai W/o. Ganapathy,

Boldenpuram 2nd street,

Thoothukudi for Rs. 4,00,000/-

on 06.01.2005 through registered

documents

Building value Rs. 3,73,970/-.

Land value Rs. 1,94,000/-

2 Ingreetta (A5) W/o. Memolin Wet land 1315.817 S.F at Bolden-

V. Royan, Thoothukudi puram 2nd street, Thoothukudi.

This property has been sold to one

Jeyapal of Boldenpuram II street,

Thoothukudi for Rs. 2,45,000/-

on 24.01.2005 through registered

documents. Rs. 2,63,000/-

3 Memolin V.Roayn (A1) and 1 Acres and 35 cents of dry land in

Ramasamy (A3) Ayyanadaippu Survey No. 24/2

village Rs. 2,17,350/-

4 Saroja (A4) and Ingretta 3 Acres and 9 cents of dry land in

(A5) Ayyanadaippu village Survey No. 24/1 Rs. 4,97,490/-

Total Rs.15,09,810/-

It appears that as on date the properties to an extent of Rs. 15,09,810/- were attached. The Inspector of Police also highlighted in his report

that they have also altered the penal provisions so as to include Section 5 of the TNPID Act and necessary alteration report was also sent to the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that she is having more evidence so as to enable the police to probe further into the matter,

but the police turned a deaf ear to her prayer to proceed further in the right direction.

While dealing with this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C, this Court cannot virtually pose as an investigating agency and probe into all factual issues and

it would be amount to interference with the course of investigation. The police investigation should not be throttled or inferred with by any Court''s

direction. Accordingly, I would like to state that without deciding on the merits or otherwise of the rival contentions, the following direction is

issued:

The Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned shall call for the entire file and scrutinise it thoroughly and that too in the wake of the

allegations/averments found set out in this petition and affidavit as well as on the side of the interveners and other depositors. The Deputy

Superintendent of Police shall permit the petitioner and other depositors as well as the interveners, to make their submissions and in an unbiased

manner give suitable direction to the Investigating Officer to probe further into the matter and once in fifteen days, he is bound to call for the

progress report from the Investigating Officer and shall give suitable directions also then and there.

The learned Counsel for the interveners in M.P (MD) No. 2 of 2007 would submit that in the course of such investigation, there shall not be

any harassment on the side of the police.

There is considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the interveners and hence, the following direction is also issued:

Let the police probe into the matter and there shall be no harassment on the side of the police, taking into account the mandates laid down by the

Honourable Apex Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, .

With the above direction, this petition is closed.