R VARADHARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks transfer of investigation in Cr.No.121 of 2010 from the 1st respondent to the CBCID of Police.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges that the case registered in Crime No.121 of 2010 by the 1st respondent for offences under Sections 147, 148, 392, 448, 506(ii) IPC and 3 of PPD Act, is not being proceeded with on proper lines by the 1st respondent, who is in favour of the accused persons. THE petition informs of the petitioner having entered upon a tenancy under the father of the respondents 4 and 5 and thereafter, having entered into an agreement for purchase of the property held by him as a tenant. It further informs that as the father of the respondents 4 and 5 had not come forward to execute the sale deed despite receipt of substantial advances, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.260 of 2003 before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Ariyalur, seeking specific performance. THE defendant therein died on 27.12.2008 and it is informed that the respondents 4 and 5 stand impleaded therein as party defendants and such suit is pending decision. It is informed that the deceased father of the respondents 4 and 5, moved a petition under the Rent Control Act in the year 2005 against the petitioner and the same was dismissed on 26.09.2006. No appeal was filed against such order of dismissal. THE respondents 4 and 5 filed a suit in O.S.No.20 of 2010 before the District Munsif Court, Perambalur, seeking relief of permanent injunction, which is pending. In these circumstances, on the complaint of the petitioner, case has been registered in Crime No.121 of 2010 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 392, 448, 506(ii) IPC and 3 of PPD Act. Such complaint, which had been preferred on 10.02.2010 i.e., the date of occurrence, came to be registered only on 12.02.2010, upon approaching the higher officials.

(3.) THIS Court finds that the case preferred by the 4th respondent has been registered with utmost dispatch at 12.30 hours on 12.02.2010 and thereafter, the present petitioner's complaint of 10.02.2010 has been registered at 13.30 hours. The respondents 4 and 5 had obtained anticipatory bail at the hands of this court and when the petitioner sought cancellation thereof on the representation of non-compliance of the conditions imposed by this Court, the 1st respondent had informed of due compliance. On finding the complaint regarding further occurrence on 04.03.2010, this Court had thought it fit to require the respondents 4 and 5 to effect appearance before the 1st respondent for a further period of three months. Again, the counter of the 1st respondent informs of having obtained statement from one of the witnesses. It is seen that if such statement is taken as true, the same would undo the complaint of the petitioner. Though, the 1st respondent informs that a charge sheet will be filed in a short period, there is no doubt about the direction in which the investigation is proceeding. Pertinently, while much is said in the petition regarding the occurrence on 04.03.2010, the counter is absolutely silent in respect thereof. THIS, despite the petitioner's contention that a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stands issued to the 1st respondent to register a case in respect of the complaint of the petitioner dated 04.03.2010.