- (1.)THIS is an application filed by one Mr.Martin, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SBCID, Headquarters, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.3713 of 2001 seeking for modification of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.29352 of 1998 directing for registration and investigation by the D.S.P., CB CID, Nagapattinam, instead of the D.S.P., SB CID, Nagapattinam.
(2.)THIS case has got a chequered history. Before considering the issue raised in this matter let us look into the chronological events:
"(a) K.V. Rajendran, working as Senior Lecturer in Physics Department in Presidency College, Chennai, filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 19352 of 1998 to direct the respondents-police officials to register an F.I.R. based on the complaint dated 2.9.1998 given by him against one Karunakaran, the then Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as "R.D.O."), Mayiladuthurai and other officials for having abducted and tortured the said Rajendran and other illegal acts committed by them between 26.8.1998 and 28.8.1998 and consequently, transfer the further investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "C.B.I.") and order for payment of compensation. (b) After hearing all the learned counsel for all the parties concerned, this Court passed an order on 1.3.2001, directing the D.S.P., SB CID, Nagapattinam District to register F.I.R. against the said Karunakaran on the basis of the complaint of Rajendran dated 2.9.1998 and take suitable action against the persons concerned in accordance with the procedures contemplated under law and continue the investigation and file the final report. (c) THIS Court while passing the said order felt that it is unnecessary to transfer the investigation to C.B.I, and consequently, rejected the request for transfer of investigation to C.B.I, as well as the claim for compensation. (d) Instead of complying with the order dated 1.3.2001, the D.S.P, SB CID, Head Quarters, Chennai, Mr.T.Martin filed a petition before this Court on 15.6.2001, i.e., after nearly about three months in Crl.M.P.No.3713 of 2001 seeking for modification stating that the post of D.S.P., SB CID in the Districts has been abolished and therefore, the D.S.P., CB CED, Nagapatinnam may be directed to register the complaint and investigate the case, by modifying the said order. (e) Curiously, this petition was not brought before this Court. Instead, the registry posted the same before Justice Malai Subramanian, who entertained the same and ordered notice on 28.6.2001 and again by the order dated 18.7.2001, it was posted after two weeks ordering for awaiting of the service of notice. Unfortunately, for the reasons best known to the concerned, the said petition in Crl.M.P.No.3713 of 2001 was not posted thereafter either before this Court or before any other Court. Ultimately, the matter was posted only on 9.7.2004 before this Court, i.e., after about three years. Admittedly, till then, there was not been attempt to comply with the order of this Court dated 1.3.2001. (f) The learned Public Prosecutor argued on behalf of Mr.Martin, D.S.P., SB CID, Head Quarters, Chennai, and sought for the said modification without giving any explanation for the delay. On noticing that the order of this Court dated 1.3.2001 has not been complied with and has been disobeyed by the officer concerned, this Court by the order dated 9.7.2004, directed Mr.Martin, D.S.P., SB CID, Head Quarters, Chennai and Mr.Sethunathan, D.S.P., SB CID, Nagapattinam, to give explanation for their inaction and for non-compliance of the order. The gist of the order dated 9.7.2004 is as follows:

"THIS is an application seeking for modification of the order dated 1.3.2001 in Crl.O.P.No. 19352 of 1998 to the effect that the D.S.P., CB-CID, Nagapattinam may be directed to register and investigate the case, instead of the D.S.P., SB-CID, Nagapattinam. Mr.T.Martin, D.S.P.- SB-CID, Head Quarters, Chennai has filed the affidavit dated 15.6.2001, even without attestation by an Advocate. Even though this affidavit has been filed on 15.6.2001 and the petition has been numbered as Crl.M.P.No.3713 of 2001, the same has been brought before this Court only in 2004, i.e. today (9.7.2004). The affidavit filed by Mr.Martin, D.S.P., SB-CID would show that the order which had been passed on 1.3.2001 in the Crl.O.P.No. 19352 of 1998 has been received by him only on 1.6.2001. THIS application, has been filed in the Registry only on 15.6.2001. Thus, it is clear that this Court's order dated 1.3.2001 in the said Crl.O.P., has not been complied with. There is no reason for the D.S.P., SB-CID as to why he had failed to hand over the investigation to the CB-CID agency. Having filed this affidavit before this Court on 15.6.2001, seeking modification, no steps have been taken to get modification or clarification of the order earlier passed. THIS Court feels that the order of this Court has not been complied with by the fourth respondent herein. Therefore, issue notice to both Mr.Martin, D.S.P., SB-CID, Head Quarters, Chennai, who has filed the affidavit and Mr.Sethunathan, D.S.P., SB-CID, Nagapattinam District, who is the fourth respondent herein, to explain as to why the order of this Court dated 1.3.2001 has not been complied with still."; (g) After passing this order, the matter was adjourned. (h) As directed by this Court, Mr.Martin, D.S.P., SB CID, has filed an affidavit dated 19.8.2004 before this Court, giving the explanation. The gist of the explanation is as follows: "Though the order was passed on 1.3.2001 by this Court, he received the order copy only on 1.6.2001. As per G.O.Ms.No.897 Home (Police-II) Department, dated 17.5.2000, the D.S.P., SB CID posts in various districts were abolished and as such, there was no post of D.S.P. SB CID on the date of the order, i.e., on 1.3.2001. Further, as per Rule 57 of the Manual of Instructions for State Special Branch, the Special Branch Officers are not to conduct the investigation of the cases. Therefore, he filed an application for modification in Crl.M.P.No.3713 of 2001 on 15.6.2001. He was informed by the office of the Public Prosecutor that intimation will be given to him and when the above petition is listed for hearing."
(i) Mr.Sethunathan, D.S.P., SB CID, as directed by this Court, has filed an affidavit on 19.8.2004 giving the explanation. The crux of the explanation is as fallows: "Sethunathan worked as D.S.P., SB CID, Nagapattinam only till 1.7.2000. Thereafter, this post was abolished. On 14.12.2000, he was posted as D.S.P.. Samaynallur Sub Division, Madurai District. In fact, he only conducted discreet enquiry into the allegation of assault on illegal detention of Rajendran by Karunakaran, R.D.O. and after finishing the enquiry, he submitted his report on 27.9.1998 to the Superintendent of Police, SB, CID, Chennai, finding that there are prima facie materials against Karunakaran, R.D.O. As such, when the final order was passed on 1.3.2001, he was not holding the post of D.S.P., SB CID at Nagapattinam." (j) Pending the enquiry before this Court, after receipt of the orders seeking for explanation from the police officials, the ADGP, CB CID passed an order on 21.7.2004 directing the Inspector, CB CID, Nagapattinam to register the case and hand over the investigation to D.S.P., CB CID. Accordingly, the complaint which was given by the said Rajendran was registered in Crime No. 1/94 for the offences under Secs. 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 348 and 506(ii), I.P.C. by the Inspector and the D.S.P., CB CID, Trichy took up investigation on 22.7.2004. (k) Thereafter, the D.S.P., CB CID conducted investigation and examined witnesses. The said Rajendran and witnesses, while examined, were treated harshly and Rajendran was compelled to withdraw the complaint against Karunakaran, R.D.O. When Rajendran felt that himself and witnesses were again harassed by the officials, he handed over a written representation to the Superintendent of Police, CB CID, Chennai on 2.9.2004 reporting about the harassment by the present Investigating Officer, the D.S.P., CB CID. Since there was no response, Rajendran filed a petition with an affidavit on 11.9.2004 before this Court to the effect that he was harassed by the present Investigating Officer and the investigation had not been conducted in an unbiased manner and therefore, investigation must be transferred to C.B.I., as prayed for by him earlier. (l) The crux of the affidavit of Rajendran dated 11.9.2004 is as follows:
"Even though the details order dated 1.3.2001 has been passed by this Court directing for the registration of the complaint and investigation by the police, the police officials concerned did not take action. He did not incline to pursue the matter before this Court by filing a separate application as he had a hope that the investigation will be conducted soon as per the orders of the High Court. But, he came to know that the order has not been complied with and only after the orders passed by this Court on 9.7.2004, directing the SB CID officials to give explanation for their inaction, the case on the complaint given by him was registered by the CB CID police against Karunakaran. On 14.8.2004 and 17.8.2004, Rajendran was enquired in Poraiyur and Mayiladuthurai Police Stations by Ms.Shanthi, D.S.P., CB CID and other officials. While he was questioned, he was asked to give details as to whether he had made a phone call to the accused Karunakaran regarding teak wood smuggling. When he denied having made a phone call, instead of enquiring into the torture meted out at the hands of Karunakaran and about the human rights violations committed on him, the D.S.P. and others began to pressurize him to withdraw the complaint against the accused telling that there is enough evidence to prove that he only made the phone call. When he filet that the investigation was bad; he was harassed and compelled to withdraw the complaint, on 9.8.2004, he met Nallasivam, Superintendent of Police, CB CID, Chennai and gave a written complaint to him about the biased nature of enquiry. Thereafter, he was again enquired on 1.9.2004 by the same D.S.P., CB CID and he was asked to produce all the original certificates regarding the treatment obtained by him from one Dr.Neelamegam. Accordingly, the records were produced. Thereafter, his brothers, relatives and members of the Teachers Association were enquired by the police. They were compelled by the Investigating Officer to give statement to the effect that Rajendran was along with them on 26.8.1998 in the village. When the witnesses denied the same, they were harassed and warned that they would be implicated in false cases if they insist on continuing to give evidence against the accused. Further, Shanthi, D.S.P., CB CID is a close friend and junior of Hema Karunakaran who is currently posted as A.D.S.P. (S.I.T), Coimbatore. The said Hema Karunakaran is none else than the wife of Karunakaran, the accused in this case. Giving details about this, Rajendran made another representation on 2.9.2004 to the Superintendent of Police, CB CID informing about the line of investigation and expressed his apprehension about the based attitude of the D.S.P., CB CID. Now, Karunakaran, originally working as R.D.O., has been promoted as District Revenue Officer and is still holding the charge of the influential post of D.R.O., even though the case was registered against him. Till now, no effort has been made to arrest him for interrogated him. As such, the case may be transferred to C.B.I." (m) On perusal of this affidavit filed by Mr.Rajendran dated 11.9.2004, a report was called for from the D.S.P., CB CID, the present Investigating Officer. Accordingly, on 17.9.2004, the D.S.P, CB CID, Trichy has filed the report before this Court, the nutshell of which is as follows: (i) The case was registered on 21.7.2004 by the Inspector, CB CID, Nagapattinam as per the orders of ADGP, CB CID, dated 21.7.2004, for the offences under Secs.147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 348 and 506(h), I.P.C. against Karunakaran. (ii) On 22.7.2004, the D.S.P., CB CID, Trichy took up investigation and went to the village and examined witnesses. Since the complaint Rajendran was at Chennai, on 27.7.2004, the D.S.P., CB CID came to Chennai and examined the complainant. So far, 33 witnesses were examined. (iii) The complainant and the witnesses were examined in the line of finding out the motive behind the assault on the complainant by the R.D.O.Karunakaran. The complainant and witnesses were examined with reference to the assault on Rajendran by the R.D.O. also. The audio cassette will be recovered from the accused during the course of investigation. The registration of the case against Karunakaran, the then R.D.O, Mayiladuthurai, who is presently working as D.R.O., Coimbatore, has been informed to the concerned superior authorities. The complainant was never compelled to withdraw the complaint."

I have heard the counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. I have also perused the records and the case diary produced by the D.S.P., CB CID, the present Investigating Officer.

At the outset, this Court is constrained to express displeasure over the conduct of the D.S.P., SB CID, Head Quarters, Chennai in not taking action for registration of the complaint forthwith as directed by this Court and also the conduct of the present D.S.P., CB CID in not conducting the investigation in an unbiased manner.

This is a case where SB CID probed into the matter over the complaint given by Rajendran and found prima facie materials to indicate that Karunakaran, R.D.O. abducted Rajendran who is working as a Lecturer in the Presidency College and he was beaten and tortured. Despite that, no further action was taken by the police. Therefore, Rajendran was constrained to file an application before this Court seeking for a direction for the action to be taken on his complaint.

Mainly based upon the report of SB CID and also on the affidavit by Rajendran giving the details of the torture and medical documents, this Court was constrained to direct registration of the case and investigation by the D.S.P., SB CID as suggested by the Public Prosecutor, especially the D.S.P., SB CID has earlier conducted enquiry into the allegations against Karunakaran and collected sufficient materials. This order was passed on 1.3.2001. While passing the orders, it was both brought to the notice of this Court that the post of D.S.P., SB CID has been abolished.

(3.)ACCORDING to Mr.Martin, D.S.P., SB CID, Head Quarters, though the order was passed on 1.3.2001, he received the order copy only on 1.6.2001. Thereafter, he filed an application on 15.6.2001 before this Court to seek for modification on the ground that D.S.P., SB CID posts were abolished as per the orders dated 17.5.2000 and as per Rule 57 of the Manual of Instructions for State Special Branch, SB CID Officers are not to conduct the investigation of cases. Thus, it is clear that the order passed by the SB CID, Nagapattinam, was forwarded to the D.S.P, SB CID, Head Quarters, Chennai for further action.
Instead of registering the case as ordered by this Court and getting the suitable orders from the senior officers for handing over of the case for the investigation to the competent officers, Mr.Martin, D.S.P., SB CID thought it fit to file the application for modification intimating this Court that D.S.P, SB CID has no power to register and investigation. The very statement would indicate the tone and tenor of the officer concerned, viz., Martin, D.S.P., SB CID, Head Quarters, Chennai, that since SB CID has no authority, they cannot comply with the order passed by this Court. This is unfortunate.

The application seeking for modification itself would amount to circumventing the order passed by this Court dated 1.3.2001. Abolition of the post of D.S.P., SB CID at Nagapattinam would not prevent the SB CID, Chennai to hand over the cases either to CB CID or to any other competent officer to investigate. Similarly, the Manual of Instructions and the Circular would not restrain this Court's powers from ordering for the registration and investigation by the SB CID police.