S.Gunasekaran v. The Director Vigilance And
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.04.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS Crl.O.P. No.1938 of 2016 S.Gunasekaran .. Petitioner Vs.
The Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Post Box No.487, NCB 21, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Chennai - 600 028.
.. Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent to register a case on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 10.12.2015 and to proceed with the investigation according to law. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.S.Thirumavalavan
O R D E R
S.Gunasekaran, the petitioner herein came forward with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking a direction to the respondent to register a criminal case based on his complaint dated 10.12.2015.
2. The petitioner belongs to Konthalam Village in Paramathi Velur Taluk in Namakkal District. One Senthil is the President of the Village Panchayat. The petitioner alleged that the said President being a public servant misused the panchayat/public funds in spending the amounts towards certain panchayat development activities.
3. Petitioner gave complaint dated 10.12.2015 to the respondent. Since there was no concrete action thereon, he came to this Court for a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. The respondent's side filed the status report. The matter is being enquired into by C.R.Boopathi Rajan, Inspector, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Namakkal District.
5. The said Senthil intervened by filing an M.P. through Mr.S.Thirumavalavan, Advocate. His Junior, Ram Senthil
represented him today. He submits that the said Senthil is innocent and he is a good man. However, Gunasekaran is his arch rival and troubles him with trumped allegations.
6. Now, the petitioner seeks direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In other words, he seeks a direction for registration of a criminal case. Legally, such registration cannot be ordered, if it is a non-cognizable case. But, such a direction can be given by this Court its writ jurisdiction also under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, this Court can issue similar direction. But the crux is, there must be a basis for a cognizable offence. Without such basis, the Court cannot straight-away issue direction for registering a case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If without any material for cognizable case, if a direction is so issued then, it will be counter productive, as against the objective of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for an opposite parties. Because Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is intended to advance cause of justice, intended to do justice. Conversely, it cannot be used to advance cause of injustice nor to do injustice. Registering a criminal case against a person will lead to many disastrous consequences. Nobody like to be an accused. Nobody love to go near police or police station. There is no pride in being an accused.
7. However, in fit cases, the Court has to exercise its jurisdiction. But it must practice extreme care and caution. Now, so far as the plea of the petitioner is concerned, more particularly, when it relates to corruption allegations, it would embark upon an enquiry to find out whether it disclose any cognizable. It is in tune with the dictum of a Constitution Bench in Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P & others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC)].
8. In this case, Boobathy Rajan, the Inspector in para No.13 of his status report, stated as under:- "13. I further submit that the Collector, Namakkal had taken the above 94 instances for enquiry and found some procedural lapses have been committed by the president (Thiru.C.Senthiil) and ordered a warning and dropped further action against Thiru.C.Senthil vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2863/2012/C/ep.3, dated 23.09.2015.
I further submit that the instances mentioned in Crl OP and the instances covered in the Preliminary Enquiry are different with the instances covered in the enquiry conducted by the Collector, Namakkal. The enquiry conducted by the DVAC in the Preliminary enquiry revealed that there is prima facie case of cognizable offenses of forgery, falsification of documents and criminal misconduct by abusing official position by public
servants against Thiru.C.Senthil President, Thiru.M.Subramani @ Chinnathambi, Vice-President, Thiru.S.Vijayakumar, Panchayat Secretary of Konthalam Panchayat and few other private individuals. And further submit that, the enquiry is pending for the collection of more documents and for the examination of more witnesses. Hence, I submit this status report before this Hon'ble Court and pray to pass appropriate orders and thus render justice."
9. Thus, it is seen that still the preliminary enquiry is going. It should exhibit its fairness to the petitioner and to the intervenor.
10. In the circumstances, The respondent is directed to proceed with the enquiry and if it discloses any cognizable offence, then it will register a case and proceed further in accordance with law. It is made clear that while doing so, the respondent shall strictly follow the mandate directions and guidelines issued by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P & others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC).
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS VII ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar Jrl To
1. The Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Post Box No.487, NCB 21, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Public Prosecutor, Sr. 27073 1 cc to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, Sr. 26590 1 cc to Mr.S. Thirumalavan, Advocate, Sr. 26364 Crl.O.P.No.1938 of 2016 RSY (CO) kk 18/5