Madras High Court
V.Sathish Kumar vs The State Rep By Its on 17 June, 2022
CRL.O.P.Nos.20900 & 32511 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.20900 & 32511 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.10779 & 17908 of 2019
V.Sathish Kumar ... Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps.
Versus
1.The State rep by its
The Inspector of Police,
CCB-1, Team,
Chennai – 7.
(Crime No.137/2019)
2.Robert Nirmal Singh ... Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.
PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.20900 of 2019 : Criminal Original Petition
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the
entire records pertaining to the above First Information Report in Crime
No.137 of 2019 registered on the file of the 1st respondent Police (Central
Crime Branch-1, Chennai) and quash the same.
PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.32511 of 2019 : Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer the
investigation of the case in Crime No.137 of 2019 on the file of the 1st
respondent Police to any other independent investigating agency.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20900 & 32511 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
in both Crl.O.Ps.
For Respondent-1 : Mr.N.S.Suganthan
in both Crl.O.Ps. Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For Respondent-2 : Ms.A.Madhumathi
in both Crl.O.Ps.
COMMON ORDER
The second accused in FIR No.137/2019 dated 15.04.2019
registered by CCB-I, Chennai is before this Court seeking to quash the
FIR and to transfer the investigation of the case to any other independent
investigating agency.
2. The sum and substance of the complaint which has led to
registration of case in Crime No.137 of 2019 by CCB-I is that the
de-facto complaint one Mr.Robert Nirmal Singh, who claimed to have
been running a photo and video business in the name and style as
“Photocity” at Chennai and various other places as proprietary concern,
had engaged one Samraj/A1 as his driver and collecting agent, on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20900 & 32511 of 2019
introduction made by one Sathish Kumar/petitioner herein. It is alleged
that the petitioner and Samraj had connive together and after gaining the
confidence of the de-facto complainant, the said Samraj had collected
money from his customers to the tune of Rs.1,80,00,000/- and
misappropriated the same and invested the money in his name and his
relatives name and also shared the misappropriated money with Sathish
Kumar. Based on his complaint, Sathish Kumar/petitioner herein was
arrested on 09.05.2019 for the alleged offence under Sections 409, 420,
506(i) r/w. 34 I.P.C. and later released on bail on condition to deposit
Rs.30,00,000/- in cash and also title deed documents in respect of
immovable property as security worth about Rs.30,00,000/-.
3. The petition to quash the F.I.R. is filed on the premises that the
petitioner is one of the Trustees of a Non-Governmental Organisation
carrying on services in and around Kanniyakumari District. The de-facto
complainant/Robert Nirmal Singh requested him to arrange a driver and
therefore he introduced one Samraj(A1) to the de-facto complainant and
his brother Rabi Mohan. The said Rabi Mohan had illegaly confined the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20900 & 32511 of 2019
said Samraj and called the petitioner to settle the money dispute he had
with Samraj and also forced to issue nearly 160 cheque leaves and signed
blank stamp papers. Thereafter, with the help of police officials,
extracted a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- from the petitioner on 13.12.2018.
Subsequently, a case was registered by District Crime Branch,
Kanniyakumari in Crime No.38 of 2018 against the petitioner and his
wife. While so, the said Rabi Mohan also filed a suit in O.S.No.1 of 2018
on the file of District Judge, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil against
Samraj and his mother alleging that the said Samraj owe him a sum of
Rs.78,00,000/-. However, the suit came to be dismissed on 12.10.2018.
Soon thereafter, the de-facto complainant, on 25.10.2018 had given a
complaint alleging that around Rs.1,80,00,000/- collected from its 50 to
60 customers has been misappropriated by Samraj(A1) and the
petitioner/A2 and when the de-facto complainant questioned about the
misappropriation, they promised to repay the money by June, 2018 and in
lieu of payment of money, they handed over the title deed of document
bearing No.481/1993 and signed cheques. But, however, they failed to
repay the money as promised. Initially, this complaint was addressed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20900 & 32511 of 2019
the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and then forwarded to Inspector of
Police, Crime Branch, Anna Nagar, who registered a case in C.S.R.
No.1054/2018 and then it was forwarded to Central Crime Branch,
Vepery, Chennai for further investigation.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the
said complaint was launched only to wreak vengeance against the
petitioner and to extract money from his Trust and applying the terms
laid down by this Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs.
Bhajanlal and Others, there is no material on the face of the record to
proceed with the investigation.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/de-facto complainant submitted that the petitioner herein, in
connivance with the said Samraj (A1), has cheated more than
Rs.1,80,00,000/- and the said Samraj had given a confession statement in
the manner in which the money was siphoned off and therefore, this is
not a fit case for quashing at the stage of investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20900 & 32511 of 2019
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
7. This Court, on a perusal of the materials, finds that between the
petitioner and Samraj(A1) on the one side and Rabi Mohan and his
brother Robert Nirmal Singh/De-facto complainant on the other side,
several proceedings have been initiated before the Criminal Court and
Civil Court. However, neither of them has whispered how huge money
has been generated for transaction. Even, the impugned complaint does
not whisper as to how and what manner a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- has
been misappropriated by Samraj(A1) and petitioner(A2) and from whom
it was collected. However, the Central Crime Branch soon after the
registration of F.I.R. had arrested the petitioner/A2 even without
ascertaining as to whether the de-facto complainant has been running a
business as he has mentioned in his complaint and the business had the
probability of generating a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20900 & 32511 of 2019
8. Be that as it may, raising doubt on the credentials of the
investigation by Central Crime Branch, the present transfer application
has been taken out by the petitioner along with the quash petition
alleging that the first respondent Police is making all attempts to procure
false evidence to justify illegal arrest and registration of the complaint
and if they are allowed to continue the investigation, he may not get
justice. Relying upon the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Gurcharan Dass Chadha Vs. State of Rajasthan
reported in 1966 0 AIR(SC) 1418, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner has reasonable apprehension about the
impartial investigation and the hast manner, in which he was arrested
without even ascertaining the credential of the de-facto complainant, who
had already initiated criminal proceedings and Civil Suit through his
brother and failed and thereafter filed a complaint with bereft of details
and facts. However, without ascertaining the truthfullness of the
averment made in the complaint, the petitioner was arrested and forced to
deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as security for getting bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20900 & 32511 of 2019
9. For consideration of this Court, the pleadings in Civil and
Criminal proceedings initiated by either side is also produced and the
same was perused. This Court is of the opinion that the gravity of the
allegation found in the complaint and counter complaint in only tip of an
iceberg and neither of the party had disclosed about the transaction of
huge sums, which as on date is not supported by any document, except
undertaking and receipts alleged to have been extracted under duress.
10. Further, it is also now brought to the notice of this Court that
the Trust by name, “Anugraha” is also involved in this case and the
complaint has been lodged only to grab the properties of the Trust. In
view of the above fact, it is appropriate to entrust the entire investigation
to CB-CID, which shall seize the matter and carry out an impartial
investigation and complete the investigation within a period of six
months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20900 & 32511 of 2019
11. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for
the first respondent Police submitted that this Court earlier has directed
the present investigation officer to proceed with the investigation, but not
to file a final report. In view of the present order, the Inspector of Police,
Team-XX, EDF-III, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai – 7, shall
hand over the entire records to the new incumbent, namely, the Inspector
of Police, CB-CID, Chennai, who shall carry on the investigation and
complete the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
12. With the above directions, these Criminal Original Petitions are
disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.06.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20900 & 32511 of 2019
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J
rsi
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
CCB-1, Team,
Chennai – 7.
2.The Inspector of Police,
CB-CID, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.Nos.20900 & 32511 of 2019
17.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
