One Jayavelu filed Crl.O.P.No.13625 of 2015 for certain directions. On 26.06.2015, this Court passed the following order:
This petition has been filed to direct the 4th respondent to register a case on the petitioner's complaint dated 20.02.2013.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.
3. On 12.06.2015, this Court passed the following order:
It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has been sending copies of this complaint to all the authorities and one such complaint appears to have been dealt by Mr.G.P.Ilangkumaran, Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team 19, who has conducted investigation and he has forwarded the complaint to Land Grabbing Cell on 08.06.2013. Thereafter, the same complaint has been dealt by the said G.P.Ilangkumaran and he has closed it as civil in nature. The complaint clearly discloses commission of cognizable offence, in as much as the opposite party have fabricated records as if the petitioner had died and has usurped the petitioner's property.
2. This Court is unable to countenance, as to how the Sub Inspector of Police could come to a conclusion that this case is civil in nature when earlier, he has referred the complaint to Land Grabbing Cell for investigation. This clearly shows that the said Sub Inspector, in order to shirk his responsibilities, has acted so. Under such circumstances, this Court directs the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch to handover the investigation of this case to a competent Inspector of Police with proven track record and integrity for fresh investigation. The Inspector of Police shall register an FIR and proceed with the investigation and the investigation shall be monitored by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch.
For reporting compliance and for orders, post on 26.06.2015.
4.Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that a case in Crime No.239 of 2015 for offence under
Section 465,467,468,471,420, 120b IPC has been registered on 25.06.2015 against 12 accused. Recording the same, this petition is closed.
2.Thereafter, the said Jayavelu has filed the present contempt petition making Mr.George, Commissioner of Police, Chennai, Ms.Lalitha Lakshmi, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, Mr.G.P.Ilankumaran, Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai and Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor of the High Court as the alleged contemnors.
3.The Registry entertained doubts about the maintainability of this petition and hence the matter was posted today before this Court.
4.When this Court put a pointed question to Mr.R.Subramanian, the counsel appearing for the petitioner, as to how Mr.C.Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor could be made as alleged contemnor in the contempt petition, he submitted that the party wanted him to include Mr.Emalias as one of the respondent and hence he was included. In fact, he read paragraph-5 of the affidavit sworn to by Jayavelu, wherein he has alleged that Mr.Emalias had deliberately mislead this Court. Whereas, on a reading of the order dated 26.06.2015, except the fact that Mr.Emalias's name appears in the cause title, there is no reference to the submissions of Mr.Emalias at all. On the contrary, it is this Court which has perused the entire records and has given a direction to register an FIR on the complaint given by Jayavelu. Despite the said relief having been granted to the petitioner, he has the audacity to make Mr.Emalias as a contemnor and file this petition.
5.Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Jayavelu, sought to justify this act. He also submitted that his client Jayavelu asked him to make Mr.Emalias as a party and therefore he impleaded Mr.Emalias as a party.
6.In the considered opinion of this Court, an Advocate is not a mouthpiece or Post Office of his client. He is an officer of the Court. He has a duty to ensure that such calumny is not made against another Advocate. The Bar Council Rules very clearly states that an Advocate must be respectful to the brother Advocates appearing for the opposite party. In the considered opinion of this Court, this is a fit case to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for taking appropriate disciplinary action against Mr.R.Subramanian for his defiance. However, taking note of the fact of his old age, this Court does not want to take the extreme step, except to close this petition in the SR stage itself, with a stern warning to Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner, not to resort to such sharp practices.