← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/2254/2022disposed of

Yamini v. State Rep By

2022-02-03Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.2254 of 2022 Yamini ... Petitioner

Versus

State Rep. by 1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Tambaram Commissioner, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Office of Tambaram Commissioner, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

3.The Inspector of Police, W-35, All Women Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045.

... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to withdraw the investigation in Crime No.25 of 2021 from the third respondent and to transfer the same to the second respondent for fair, scientific and impartial investigation in Crime No.25 of 2021. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Mario Johnson For Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to withdraw the investigation in Crime No.25 of 2021 from the third respondent

and to transfer the same to the second respondent for fair, scientific and impartial investigation in Crime No.25 of 2021. 2.The contention of the petitioner is that on the complaint of the petitioner a case in Crime No.25 of 2021 came to be registered on 18.11.2021 for offence under Sections 376, 354(C) and 506 IPC and 67 of Information Technology Act against one Baskaran S/o. Murugan and Ashvin. A2 Ashvin Kumar had lodged a false complaint against the petitioner on 18.11.2021 and a case in Crime No.356 of 2021 registered by the Chitlapakkam Police, for offence under Sections 448, 364 A, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(2) IPC.

The petitioner had sent a representation to the Home Secretary, Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police through registered post stating that the manner in which the offence have taken place. The petitioner and her family members have been constantly threatened and harassed. Hence they are not living a peaceful life. Further the Inspector of Police is pressurizing the petitioner to enter into the compromise to resolve the issue, since the accused in this case seems to be loaded with cover in all means.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that during January 2022 a notice was issued to the petitioner informing that A1 in this case had approached the High Court vide anticipatory bail application and A2 was arrested. For the purpose of proceeding under Information Technology Act and for confirming the video recordings and photographs the respondent police directed the petitioner to produce the mobile phone and other instruments in their support. After receipt of the notice the petitioner is yet to appear before the respondent police. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on receipt of the letter, the petitioner had sent a communication on 31.12.2021 requesting to provide the anticipatory bail particulars of A1 and also the arrest and remand particulars of A2. So far no information received.

The petitioner's apprehension is that the third respondent police have become in complacent with the accused. The complaint of the petitioner is serious in nature and it is almost a year completed and the respondent police is yet to take any proper steps in this regard.

5.Further from the notice sent to the petitioner, it is seen that the notice is without any particulars except for informing that A2 has been arrested and A1 has been filed an anticipatory bail petition. The petitioner is asked for details, which is

yet to be produced. Further it is seen that on 12.01.2022, the petitioner had lodged a complaint stating about the threat and abuse. The said Ashwin Kumar and her friend Sofia called for enquiry. For which the said Ashwin Kumar had lodged a complaint though CSR assigned no action has been taken so far. Investigation seems to be on its own pace.

6.In view of the same, investigation is to be transferred to the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who shall investigate both the case in Crime Nos.25 of 2021 and 356 of 2021. The Inspector of Police, Chitlapakkam Police Station is directed to hand over the entire case diary of the CSR.No.27 of 2022 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tambaram, likewise, the Inspector of Police, Chitlapakkam and Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tambaram are also directed to handover the case diaries in Crime Nos.25 of 2021 and 356 of 2021 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tambaram. The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram is directed to assign an appropriate officer in the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCB, Tambaram to conduct investigation in both the cases especially Ms.

Subbulakshmi, Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCB, Tambaram to investigate the case and file the final report. The above said investigation is to be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ah To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Tambaram Commissioner, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Office of Tambaram Commissioner, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

3.The Inspector of Police, W-35, All Women Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045.

4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tambaram.

5.The Inspector of Police, Chittlapakkam Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai.

6.The Deputy Commissioner of Police CCB, Tambaram.

7.Ms.Subbulakshmi, The Deputy Commissioner of Police CCB, Tambaram.

8.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

CRL.O.P.No.2254 of 2022 gsm[co] srg 03/03/2022