N. Dhanalakshmi vs The Director General of Police

K.B.K. Vasuki, J.—This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the wife of Late J.K.K. Natarajah, to direct the first respondent Director General of Police, to transfer the enquiry report of the third respondent Superintendent of Police, Nammakkal District, bearing Rc. No. 84/Camp/SP/NKL/2012, dated 17.07.2012, to the fourth respondent Central Bureau of Investigation to register the case and to investigate the matter expeditiously in accordance with law.

The circumstances under which the petitioner has come forward with the present criminal original petition are as follows;

(a) The petitioner-Dhanalakshmi and J.K.K. Natarajah, who was a leading industrialist and was running various educational institutions under the Trust, called ''J.K.K. Rangammal Charitable Trust'', at Kumarapalayam, Namakkal District, got married in 1949 and as she bore no child, they adopted the fifth respondent Sendamarai, who is the daughter of J.K.K. Sundararaja, who is none else than the brother of J.K.K. Natarajah. The fifth respondent-Sendamarai was given in marriage to one Krishnaraj, who is the petitioner in M.P. No. 1 of 2014, during 1974. During 1985, the fifth respondent Sendamarai was entrusted with the management of one Spinning Mill in the name of Alagappa Spinning Mill at Rajapalayam. Thereafter, the fifth respondent took over the administration of Alagappa Spinning Mill at Rajapalayam and J.K.K. Natarajah and the petitioner were on visiting term to Rajapalayam.

(b) It is also noteworthy to mention at this juncture that during 1988, the petitioner and her husband deceased J.K.K. Natarajah were on strained relationship and J.K.K. Natarajah filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No. 435 of 1988, which was renumbered as O.S. No. 340 of 1991 against the wife Dhanalakshmi, who is the petitioner herein, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining Dhanalakshmi from interfering with his acting as Managing Trustee and the suit was subsequently dismissed as settled out of Court. In the meanwhile, Dhanalakshmi was removed from the post of Secretary of the educational institutions and the fifth respondent Sendamarai was appointed as Secretary by J.K.K. Natarajah on 15.09.1989.

(c) While so, the two documents, styled as trust assumption deed and Will, registered as document Nos. 221 & 72 of 1995 respectively, came into existence on 29.06.1995, in and under which J.K.K. Natarajah and the petitioner herein, according to the fifth respondent, relinquished their Office of trusteeship and the fifth respondent was appointed as Managing Trustee. They were, according to the fifth respondent, executed by J.K.K. Natarajah and the petitioner in respect of all the properties in favour of the fifth respondent Sendamarai. Within three months from the date of execution of those documents, J.K.K. Natarajah died during September 1995. After the death of J.K.K. Natarajah, the fifth respondent Sendamarai, on the strength of the said registered documents, took over the management and administration of the trust and other properties, including the educational institutions by reason of which property dispute arose between the widow and adopted daughter of J.K.K. Natarajah, i.e., the petitioner and the fifth respondent herein.

(d) The strained relationship led to criminal complaints and civil suits by and against the petitioner on one hand and the fifth respondent on the other hand. Originally the husband of Sendamarai by name Krishanraj was on the side of his wife and due to matrimonial dispute arose between husband and wife, they obtained divorce in 2000 and thereafter, the ex-husband of the fifth respondent by name Krishnaraj join hands with the petitioner, who is the opponent of his ex-wife.

(e) In all the complaints, the petitioner either raised suspicion about the nature of death of her husband or questioned the validity and genuineness of the documents, dated 29.06.1995. Except the complaint registered in Crime No. 1 of 1996, other earlier complaints lodged by the petitioner-Dhanalakshmi were enquired into and closed. The present complaint is the last of such complaint dated 28.10.2011. The complaint, dated 28.10.2011, was enquired into by the then Superintendent of Police, Namakkal and the outcome of which is the enquiry report dated 17.01.2012, submitted to the Director General of Police, which is the subject matter of the present criminal original petition.

While, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, wife of J.K.K. Natarajah, the documents, dated 29.06.1995, were created by forging the signatures of the petitioner and J.K.K. Natarajah to grab the properties and thereafter, the husband was murdered by the beneficiary i.e., the fifth respondent Sendamarai, along with her associates, named in the petition, for taking over the properties, according to the fifth respondent, the documents were voluntarily executed by J.K.K. Natarajah and his wife, and they are the subject matter of the civil suit now pending at the second appeal stage and the petitioner has raised dispute regarding the manner of death of her husband without any basis, that too after inordinate delay and all her earlier complaints were duly enquired into and closed as mistake of fact and as no further action is warranted and it is only the latest complaint which culminated into the enquiry report. The fifth respondent has also seriously questioned the authority of the third respondent-Superintendent of Police in conducting such an enquiry and in sending the enquiry report, dated 17.07.2012, after her transfer from Namakkal on 14.07.2012.

As far as M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014 are concerned, M.P. No. 1 of 2014 is filed by Krishnaraj, who is the ex-husband of the fifth respondent Sendamarai, to be impleaded as sixth respondent in the main criminal original petition and M.P. No. 2 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner to recall the order, dated 25.02.2014, made in M.P. No. 2 of 2013, in and under which the fifth respondent Sendamarai was impleaded as the fifth respondent in the main criminal original petition.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in M.P. No. 1 of 2014, he has given statements under Sections 164 and 306 Cr. P.C. in Crime No. 1 of 1996 and statements before the 3rd respondent regarding the manner in which Sendamarai and others colluded with to bring out the forged documents and to eliminate J.K.K. Natarajah, as such he is necessary party to be heard in this petition, whereas the petitioner in M.P. No. 2 of 2014 has seriously questioned the correctness of the order made in M.P. No. 2 of 2013, mainly on the ground that the proposed accused has no right of audience and hearing in this petition.

Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records carefully.

From the facts made available herein, it is now seen that the J.K.K. Natarajah, much before his death had strained relationship with his wife, the petitioner herein and his relationship with his adopted daughter was but cordial. It may be true that J.K.K. Natarajah died during September 1995, three months after the execution of the documents dated 29.06.1995 and the fifth respondent-Sendamarai thereafter took over the management and administration of the trust and the properties belonging to the trust, including the educational institutions.

The petitioner has come forward with the first representation raising suspicion about the nature of death of her husband on 16.10.1995 and made such representation to the then Chief Minister and Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has in the first representation raised mild suspicion about the nature of death of her husband and the same was forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer for appropriate enquiry and the petitioner has before the Revenue Divisional Officer withdrew her statement regarding her suspicion about the nature of death of her husband. It is categorically stated by her before RDO that the dispute between herself and her adopted daughter is only property dispute and she has no suspicion about the manner of death of her husband. The next complaint raised by her is dated 05.02.1996 in which she has not stated anything about the manner of death of her husband. The allegation raised therein is regarding the forged nature of the documents dated 29.06.1995, registered on 04.07.1995. The complaint was received and registered as CBCID crime No. 1 of 1996 for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 IPC against Sendamarai, her husband and others, and thereafter, the case was investigated into and a final report was filed and the same was taken up on file in C.C. No. 108 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar.

Much before the same, the petitioner herein preferred C.S. No. 2090 of 1995 against Sendamarai and her husband for declaring the documents styled as deed of assumption of charges and Will, as fabricated documents and null and void, and declaring the plaintiff/petitioner herein as the Managing Trustee of the Plaintiff Trust and for other consequential injunctions for restraining Sendamarai from claiming any right as either Managing Trustee or trustee of the first plaintiff trust. The suit was subsequently dismissed on the jurisdiction aspect and leave granted to the plaintiff to file the suit was subsequently revoked in Application No. 598 of 1996 in C.S. No. 2090 of 1995. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed O.S. No. 242 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District for the same relief and that was dismissed for default and the steps taken to restore the same was also rejected.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner also filed W.P. Nos. 41695 of 1996 and 16460 of 1997 to stall the enquiry regarding the legal heirship and to issue legal heirship certificate. The same was followed by an order by the Tahsildar issuing legal heirship certificate to both Dhanalakshmi and Sendamarai as legal heirs of J.K.K. Natarajah. The same was challenged by Dhanalakshmi in O.S. No. 96 of 1998 and later on, the same was dismissed. The petitioner also filed writ petitions against the orders passed by the educational authorities in favour of Sendamarai, the fifth respondent herein and those writ petitions were dismissed by common order dated 18.04.1998 and the writ appeals filed against those orders were dismissed as withdrawn. In none of these civil proceedings, as referred to above, the petitioner raised any doubt regarding the manner of death of her husband J.K.K. Natarajah.

As far as the proceedings initiated against the genuineness of the documents are concerned, the investigation was completed and the case was taken cognizance in C.C. No. 108 of 2002 against the fifth respondent, her husband and Palanimurugan @ Murugan and one Balasubramanian. Pending the same, Krishnaraj turned approver and gave a statement under Sections 164 & 306 Cr. P.C., wherein Krishnaraj for the first time made statement about the various acts done by his wife along with others, including himself, in order to grab the properties, etc., and the manner in which the documents are created forgedly and regarding the manner in which J.K.K. Natarajah had his end. In view of such statement amended charge sheet was filed in C.C. No. 108 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w 120B IPC and Sections 82(c) and 82(d) of the Indian Registration Act.

In the meanwhile, the suit filed by the fifth respondent in O.S. No. 57 of 1996 for declaring the Will as true and valid one was dismissed and aggrieved against the same, the fifth respondent filed A.S. No. 24 of 2003 and the same was after due contest allowed on 10.02.2004 and aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed second appeal in S.A. No. 2125 of 2004. Pending second appeal, the fifth respondent and Palanimurugan @ Murugan filed Crl. O.P. No. 5723 of 2004 to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C. No. 108 of 2002 and sought for stay of the proceedings till the disposal of S.A. No. 2125 of 2004. This Court has disposed of the stay petition on merits and granted stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 108 of 2002 till the disposal of the S.A. No. 2125 of 2004 and stay was granted mainly on the ground that the issue involved in C.C. No. 108 of 2002 and Second Appeal No. 2125 of 2004 are one and the same, regarding the genuineness of the documents dated 29.06.1995. Having failed to obtain any orders in all the civil proceedings, the petitioner has thought fit to invoke the criminal jurisdiction against her opponents.

As already referred to, the petitioner herein has submitted a representation to the Hon''ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 16.10.1995 and she has, in the course of enquiry into the same, retracted her statement regarding the nature of death of her husband. Thereafter, the petitioner, between 1996 and 2011 gave successive complaints, not regarding the nature of death of her husband, but regarding the genuineness of the documents dated 29.6.1995. The complaints are dated 5.2.1996, 9.1.2009, 3.10.2002 and 4.10.2011. In all these complaints, the allegations raised are mainly about the genuineness of the documents, which is the issue in determination in S.A. No. 2125 of 2004. In addition to the complaints filed by the petitioner, adverse statements made available in this regard are the statements made by the ex-husband of Sendamarai by name S. Krishnaraj (i) under section 164 Cr. P.C. dated 25.5.2000; (ii) under Section 306 Cr. P.C. dated 12.3.2002; and (iii) notarised affidavit dated 16.9.2011. All these statements were made by the said Krishnaraj/Ex-husband of the fifth respondent Sendamarai herein, who is the petitioner in MP No. 1 of 2014 in Crl. OP. No. 10437 of 2013, after his dispute with Sendamarai and after obtaining divorce from her. The same ex-husband was, at the instance of the petitioner herein, arrayed as one of the accused in Cr. No. 1/1996 culminated as CC. No. 108/2002 in which he now turned approver. The very conduct of the Krishnaraj, the ex-husband of the fifth respondent Sendamarai in making statements, much after the dispute between the husband and wife, accused Sendamarai and sending notarised affidavit to the petitioner herein during 2011, thereby implicating Sendamarai, her staff and lawyer, who rendered legal assistance to her, in the act of murder and in the act of forgery would only go to show that the statements are made only to wreck vengeance and to harass the fifth respondent. Whatever be the nature of the statements made by him, he remains to be one of the witnesses and the truthfulness, admissibility and relevancy of his statements have to be necessarily gone into during trial in CC. No. 108/2002, the proceedings of which is already stayed pending SA. No. 2125/2004 in Crl. OP. No. 5723/2004 filed to quash the proceedings in CC. 108/2002. Under such circumstances, the ex-husband of the fifth respondent by name Krishnaraj, who is the petitioner in MP. 1/2014 is not necessary party and his presence and participation in this petition is in no manner likely to assist the court in deciding the issue in hand. As such, the petitioner in MP. 1/2014 need not be brought on record as one of the respondents in the Crl. O.P. and MP. 1/2014 is liable to be dismissed.

Insofar as the impleadment of the fifth respondent Sendamarai in this Crl. OP is concerned, this Crl. O.P. was originally filed only against the police officials and the fifth respondent herein by name Sendamarai has approached this court by way of MP. No. 2/2013 for permitting her to come on record. It is stated by her in her affidavit filed in support of the petition that her presence is necessary to appraise the Court of all the developments involved in this case and about the unsuccessful attempts made by the petitioner Dhanalakshmi in bringing out the Criminal case against the fifth respondent and others that too, in order to harass the fifth respondent herein and the circumstances under which her ex-husband joined hands with others to harass her. The petition was ordered on 25.2.2014 and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner in MP. 2/2013 was permitted to come on record as the 5th respondent in this petition. Thereafter, the fifth respondent has filed her counter and the same was also responded by way of reply affidavit by the petitioner Dhanalakshmi. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Dhanalakshmi has also preferred SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court against the order dated 25.02.2014 and she has also simultaneously preferred MP. No. 2/2014 to recall the order dated 25.2.2014 made in MP. 2/2013 before this Court. Though the order was made on 25.2.2014 and though the fifth respondent was permitted to file her counter and she filed her counter and reply affidavit was also filed by the petitioner, the petitioner thought it fit to challenge the correctness of the order dated 25.02.2014 only during August 2014, after the main petition was listed for argument. Till date, the petitioner is not able to obtain any order from the Hon''ble Apex Court in this regard.

Be that as it may, the petitioner has in this Crl. O.P. except mentioning about the present complaint, not referred to the earlier complaints and the outcome of the same. The only criminal proceedings referred to in the Crl. O.P. is regarding CC. No. 108 of 2002. The relief sought for in this petition is based on the statement of Krishnaraj, who is the accused turned approver in CC. No. 108/2002 and the report of the third respondent Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District. The particulars regarding other complaints are referred to only in the rejoinder filed to the counter filed by the fifth respondent herein. Under such circumstances, this court is inclined to accept the view expressed by the learned single judge of Delhi High court in the unreported judgment in the case of Meenakshi Jain v. State and another. The petitioner therein is the de facto complainant and the relief sought for in the application under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is to direct the police to register the FIR and the same was ordered by directing the Delhi Medical Council, before whom the complaint is pending to expedite the hearing of the complaint and to file the action taken report. Aggrieved against the same, the complainant filed the petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the order of the Judicial Magistrate and to issue appropriate direction to the respondent police to register the FIR on the basis of her complaint. Pending the same, the proposed accused filed intervening petition and the same was opposed by the de facto complainant on the ground that the intervenor has no locus standi to maintain any application. The learned brother judge rejected the objection so raised. The learned brother judge of Delhi High Court, while reiterating the legal position that the accused or the prospective accused has no right of participation in the proceedings at the pre-summoning stage or till the time he is summoned, was of the view that the situation changes, in case the complainant himself goes to the High Court under section 482 Cr. P.C. assailing the order of the learned Magistrate and seeking to obtain an adverse order against the accused. The learned Single Judge is of the considered view that in appropriate cases the participation of the proposed accused is necessary for getting clearer picture and but for the presence of the proposed accused, the factual state of affairs would have gone unnoticed. It is further observed in para 16 that the Court is well within its right to give a right of hearing to the interveners in the light of peculiar facts of the case and if the right of hearing would not have been given to the interveners, it may have done incalculable damage inasmuch as the FIR might have got registered against them. The learned brother Judge has by observing so hence disallowed the objection raised by the petitioner therein challenging the locus standi of the interveners to assist the court. It is also observed by the learned brother judge that the question of locus standi would have arisen if the interveners come to the court and such question does not arise if the interveners who have come to the court, are the prospective respondents in the proceedings.

As in the case decided by the learned Brother Judge of the Delhi High Court, here also the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts in the main petition. The subsequent developments, which are material enough to decide the issue in the case, would not have been brought to the notice of this Court, but for the intervention of the fifth respondent herein. Further the petitioner has not immediately thought fit to challenge the correctness of the order made on 25.02.2014. She has come forward with the petition to recall only on 20.08.2014, that too after filing rejoinder to the counter filed by the fifth respondent in the main petition. Pending the petition to recall the order dated 25.02.2014 before this Court, she has also filed a petition before the Hon''ble Apex Court questioning the correctness of the very same order. The conduct of the petitioner, as above stated, would only go to show that the relief sought for in M.P. No. 2 of 2014 to recall the order dated 25.02.2014 is lacking in bona fide. In view of the reasons stated above and by applying the views of the Delhi High Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is disentitled to get any order in M.P. No. 2 of 2014. The petition is also hence liable to be dismissed.

Coming back to the complaint filed by the petitioner herein, the petitioner has though raised suspicion regarding the death of her husband on 16.10.1995 immediately gave up the same in her (i) subsequent complaint culminated as CC. No. 108 of 2002 before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Virudhunagar (ii) complaint dated 09.01.2009 (iii) CSR No. 421/2011 before Kumarapalayam Police station and (iv) Cr. No. 49/2011 before the District Crime Branch, Namakkal. All the earlier complaints, except CC No. 108/2002 in Cr. No. 1/1996, were either duly enquired or investigated into as the case may be, and closed as mistake of fact and the petitioner was also served with RCS. The above complaints were lodged only against the validity and genuineness of two documents, one among which is the subject matter of SA No. 2125/2004. The petitioner has, between 1995 and 2011 almost given up her suspicion regarding the death of her husband and the same was again cropped up only in 2011 in her latest complaint filed by her that too on the basis of the statement of the ex-husband of the fifth respondent and the same was enquired by the third respondent Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District and such enquiry report is the subject matter of the present petition. The enquiry report is mainly based on the forged nature of the document and the statement of Krishnaraj. While the forged nature of the document is the subject matter of the Second appeal, the proceedings forming part of the statement of Krishnaraj is stayed by this court till the disposal of the second appeal, as such, there is no other materials to suspect the manner of death of the husband of the petitioner. The third respondent-Superintendent of Police has, except highlighting the pendency of the second appeal and C.C. No. 108 of 2002, and the statement made by Krishnaraj and the closure of the earlier complaints, which are well within the knowledge of the parties, has not collected any new material to accept the allegation regarding the murder and to conclude that the nature of the death of J.K.K. Natarajah requires to be probed into. The third respondent-Superintendent of Police has not given any reason to arrive at a conclusion that the earlier orders are obtained by Sendamarai by exercising influence at various levels. The conclusion so arrived at by the Superintendent of Police are not substantiated or supported by valid reasoning. There is also specific allegation raised against the fifth respondent that this enquiry report is prepared and sent by the third respondent/Superintendent of Police with ulterior motive much after her transfer to another place. The Superintendent of Police has not in her report dealt with the retracting statement of the petitioner about the death of her husband at the earliest possible time and in not raising the same for more than till 2011. When the petitioner has chosen to initiate so many civil and criminal proceedings against the fifth respondent and others for the forgery of the documents in connection with the management of the properties, it is but mysterious that she has not chosen to raise any suspicion regarding the death of her husband. There is absolutely no explanation on the part of the petitioner in not raising such plea between 1996 and 2011. The only possible explanation can be that she is well aware that the suspicion is baseless and unfounded. Further, it is also not explained in the report as to what useful purpose will be served and as to the manner of investigation to be held, at this length of time, regarding the death of the husband, which occurred in 1995.

On the other hand, the conduct of the parties and the facts and circumstances made available herein would only show that the same is raised only to settle the property dispute between the parties and not otherwise. Though this Court is bound by the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the number of authorities cited on the side of the petitioner in support of his contention regarding the circumstances under which the investigation may be directed to be held by independent agency as that of CBI, there is no such situation involved in the present case. The Hon''ble Supreme court in the judgment reported in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, cited on the side of the petitioner, is pleased to observe that the aggrieved person can claim investigation and proper investigation but has no right to claim investigation by any particular agency like CBI. In that case, there was an investigation by GRP, Mathura and also two courts of inquiry held by the army authorities and they found that it was a case of suicide. Under such circumstances, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was of the view that mere allegation of the appellant therein that his son was murdered because he had discovered some corruption, could not justify the CBI inquiry particularly when inquires were held by the army authorities as well as by GRP at Mathura, which revealed that it was a case of suicide and no CBI inquiry can be ordered as a matter of routine or merely because the party makes some allegation.

In yet another case reported in Doliben Kantilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, , the Hon''ble Apex court has in para 16, clearly laid down that if the facts are such, which require some enquiry for the satisfaction about the charges or allegations made in the FIR or that one may have entertained a reasonable belief or doubt, then enquiry be made only if there is a background/materials or information. In the same judgment, the Hon''ble Apex Court in para 17, referred to the Constitution Bench judgment reported in State of West Bengal and Others Vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others, , which dealt with the question of issuing direction to CBI to conduct investigation. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has observed that no such order be passed as a matter of routine or merely because the party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.

Though this court is bound by the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the authorities cited on the side of the petitioner that when the investigation by the local police is not proper and not free from doubt, it would be appropriate to transfer the investigation to CBI, no such occasion arises in this case, wherein the suspicion regarding the nature of death of the petitioner''s husband was not at all raised by the petitioner for more than a decade, as such there is no occasion for the local police to enquire into the same.

Thus, this Court, having regarding to the facts relating to background of the case and the nature of the dispute between the parties i.e., property dispute and the complaints regarding the same and unexplained circumstances under which, the petitioner kept silent and her failure to raise any allegation regarding the nature of death of her husband for more than a decade, the nature of the materials based on which is the report of the third respondent-Superintendent of Police pendency of Second Appeal on the same issue and the absence of any other fresh materials collected in the course of her enquiry, is of the considered view that no order as sought for herein, is warranted and the petitioner is hence disentitled to get any relief in this petition.

In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014 are also dismissed. MP. No. 1/2013 is closed.