- (1.) 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.
(2.) 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 under Section 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.
(3.) 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.;