IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.09.2017 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN Crl.O.P.No.19557 of 2017 C.Vijaya Kumar ..Petitioner Vs.
The Union of India, Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai, (RCMA1 2016 A0028). ..Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to transfer the case FIR.No:RCMA1 A0028 from the present Investigating Officer to any other competent officer or on the alternative the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to monitor the investigation.
For Petitioner : Mr. Barnabas For Respondent : Mr. K. Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor [CBI cases]
O R D E R
This petition is filed to transfer the case FIR.No:RCMA1 A0028 from the present Investigating Officer to any other competent officer or on the alternative the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to monitor the investigation.
2. One Ganapathy has filed a complaint before Thirumangalam Police Station on 25.12.2013 against D.Vivekanandan, I.A.S and his son Kavin Vivek alleging that they had cheated more than ten persons to a tune of Rs.1,30,00,000/- promising to secure public office viz., Assistant Public Relations Officer post in the Government. The said case was investigated by the police and a final report was filed before the concerned Court and the matter was taken up on file in C.C.No.99/15. At that juncture, the said Kavin Vivek has moved a petition before the High Court to quash the case against them. In that application the defacto complainant Ganapathy got himself impleaded. This Court after going through the case details and the pleadings of the respective parties found that the defacto complainant himself is a party to the crime and he should be arrayed as an accused and the matter has to be investigated by the Specialised Agencies namely CBI. Accordingly, CBI has registered a regular case against Kavin Vivek and Vivekanandan IAS & Ganapathy and the matter is under investigation by CBI. Now one of the victims named Vijayakumar who is the petitioner in this case has come forward with the present application with a prayer that the matter has to be transferred to some other Investigation Officer or any other competent Officer or the High Court to monitor the investigation, since he suspects that the present Investigation Officer is sailing with the public servant, Vivekanandan (A2) and his son Kavin Vivek (A1).
3. The sum and substance of the present petition as found in the affidavit is that this petitioner who hails from a middle class family with a fond hope to get a public office namely Assistant Public Relations Officer post has paid Rs.13 lakhs to A1 through A3 and now he had been cheated by them by not securing the job. When he demanded the money back, they pretended to pay the money, but they did not do so. On the face of it, it appears that the petitioner herein has failed in his attempt to secure public office through back door by paying bribe through one of the accused. On the face of his admission he is a party to the crime and liable to be prosecuted. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to page no.29 of the order passed by this Court in the earlier petition filed by Kavin Vivek and others and submitted that this petitioner is protected under Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he cannot be arrayed as an accused. It is too premature now to take a decision about the criminal liability or otherwise. But, the allegation is that the investigation is not proceeding in the proper direction and non arrest of Kavin Vivek (A1) & Vivekanandan (A2) perse indicates lapse in the investigation and it cannot be countenanced at this stage.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that after securing Ganapathy they will be able to proceed against other accused. So far summons have been issued to the so called victims
Dr.G. JAYACHANDRAN
dpq including the petitioner and their submissions have been recorded. The investigation is moving on the right direction and there is no lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner suspects that the statements recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedural Code may not be fool proof reflection of the statement. It is too premature to presume all those things and to comment on the course of investigation. This Court is of the opinion that this petitioner deserves no indulgence for the present, in view of the submissions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Accordingly this petition is dismissed.
18.09.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no dpq To
1. The Union of India, Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai, (RCMA1 2016 A0028).
2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.19557 of 2017