9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undisputed fact is that all the criminal cases in FIR No.441 of 2015 (C.C.No.24 of 2021), FIR No.298 of 2017(C.C.No.19 of 2020), FIR No.344 of 2018 (C.C.No.25 of 2021) are inter connected with same recruitment irregularities in the appointment at State Transport Corporations during the year 2014 - 2015 and all the criminal cases involved in cash-for-job scam. My attention at this juncture was drawn by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 to the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1514 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1354 of 2022) P.Dharmaraj Vs. Shanmugam Ors. [ 2022 (9) TMI 1470 - SUPREME COURT] wherein, the Hon ble Supreme Court set aside the order of quashing the criminal case in C.C.No.25 of 2021 by this Court order dated 30.07.2021 in Crl. O.P. No.13374 of 2021 filed by Mr.Shanmugam (A3) in C.C.No.25 of 202 -. Further held that the remaining two criminal cases i.e. C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.24 of 2021 are also with corruption allegation and all criminal complaints arose out of the very same cash-for-job scam as a matter of fact the State ought to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in Crl. O.P. No.13914 of 2021 has been filed by Mr. R. Sahayarajan to call for all the records in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to Members of Parliament and Member of legislative assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and quash the same. 3. This Criminal Original Petition in Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 has been filed by Mr. Devasagayam to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.24 of 2021 pending on the file of Additional Special Court for the Trial of Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly, Chennai and direct the respondent to conduct a de-novo reinvestigation in C.C.No.24 of 2021. 4. This Criminal original Petition in Crl. O.P. No.6621 of 2021 has been filed by Mr. M. Vetrichelvan to call for the records in the FIR, Final report in C.C.No.24 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Special Court for trial of Criminal Cases, related to elected M.P's and M.L.As of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and quash the same. 5. In Crl.R.C.No.224 of 2021 (C.C.No.19 of 2020), Anti Corruption Movement filed an impleading petition in Crl.M.P.No.10504 of 2021 to implead it as a respondent in the abovesaid criminal revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsuance of the directions issued by this Court, the Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department vide its letter dated 30.07.2014 directed all the Managing Directors of the State Transport Corporation undertakings to follow the directions of the Division Bench in the process of recruitment. 14. Notification for open recruitment was issued by the Managing Director of MTC and other officials of MTC. Simultaneously, category wise sponsored lists were called for from the District Employment Offices of Chennai, Thiruvallur and Kanchipuram. 15. In the process, a total number of 16,081 applications were received, out of which, 12,765 candidates attended interview and 2209 appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates. 16. Now, The Tamil Nadu Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, Mr.V.Senthil Balaji was then functioning as Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Minister at Selvi J.Jayalalithaa's Cabinet in 2014. 17. In the said appointments, various officials of the Transport Corporation colluded severally and jointly with Mr.V.Senthil Balaji the then Transport Corporation Minister and his close associates in the matter of appointment of candida ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered on 09.09.2017 with a delay of two years and eight months and the delay would vitiate the entire proceedings. 4. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the petitioner has nothing to do with the appointments and he is not an appointing authority but the board of appointment committee alone empowered to make appointments from the eligible candidates participated in the interview. The petitioner cannot be held responsible or prosecuted for the act of some unknown persons or third parties. The petitioner never met any victims and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant himself has collected money from various individuals. There is no material to show that the petitioner received any amount from them and to connect the petitioner to the alleged cash-for- job scam. 5. The learned counsel further contended that the statement of witnesses would show that receiving of money was between other persons only. Roping the petitioner with receiving money is unbelievable version. This petitioner neither promised nor gave assurance to any job seekers. 6. The learned Senior counsel further contended that the petitioner became MLA on the AIADMK decade at 14th L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. 4. The learned counsel to support his argument placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court cases 303 and Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466 Thus, pleaded to allow this Criminal Original Petition and quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020 pending on the file of the Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to Members of Parliament and Member of legislative assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 21. The argument of the learned counsel in Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 (C.C.No.24 of 2021) 1. The learned counsel Mr.Sriram Panchu, Senior Counsel for M/s.Priyanka Dorothy Varma appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner Mr.Devasagayam is the defacto complainant in Crime No.441 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC. Based on the complaint of Devasagayam, the Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A11 Lalith Lulla, and A12 Liyakat Ali Khan. The final report filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial for CCB and CBCID (Metro) Cases, Egmore, Chennai, vide C.C.No.3627 of 2017 was taken cognizance on 20.06.2017. 5. Thereafter, another victim Mr.R.B.Arun Kumar filed a petition in Crl. O.P. No.32067 of 2019 before this Court seeking direction to the police to conduct further investigation in Crime No.441 of 2015 in C.C.No.3627 of 2017 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID (Metro) Cases, Chennai. This Court vide its order dated 27.11.2019 directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch (Job Racket Wing) to conduct further investigation of the case and to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible within 6 months. The police, after further investigation, filed a final report against 47 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420, r/w 34 IPC @ 406, 419 and 420 r/w 34 IPC @ 120B, 465, 467, 471 201 IPC and 7, 12, 13(2) r/w and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 109 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 6. The learned counsel would further c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner as a complainant cannot be brushed aside and ignored by the investigating agency. The statement of the petitioner as a complainant is more important and pertinent to real trial but the investigating agency has completely ignored the case of the petitioner and diverted itself to some other irrelevant issues with ulterior motive, for which, the petitioner cannot be a new spectator. Hence, in the interest of justice, it is a duty of the petitioner to bring it to the knowledge about his own grievance in the case as per the settled proposition of law. 10. Further submitted that this Court, while admitting the Criminal Original Petition recorded that the investigation in this case was conducted in a deficit manner and the petitioner's grievance ought to be redressed, finds there is a prima facie case made in favour of the petitioner and admitted the petition and also granted stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2021. 11. Further, contended that the final report filed in C.C.No.3627 of 2017 and final report in C.C.No.24 of 2021 are completely different in substance. In the final report filed in C.C.No.3627 of 2017, the investigating officer cited S.Baskar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffence on the basis of the materials on record and the Court can direct further investigation or to treat the protest petition as a complaint in terms of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. Further, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another AIR 1985 SC 1285 followed in Union Public Service Commission Vs. S.Papaiah and others, AIR 1997 SC 3876 and relied the proposition that on the mandatary requirement not being fulfilled, the entire process of takingup cognizance will be vitiated. 15. Further, the learned counsel relied upon the decision in Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others in (2012) 7 SCC 407 and also contended that the basic purpose of an investigation is to bring out the truth by conducting fair and proper investigation in accordance with law and to ensure that the guilty are punished, it had held further that the jurisdiction of the Court to ensure fair and proper investigation in an adversarial system of criminal administration is of a higher decree than in a inquisitorial system and it has to take precaution that interested or inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Joint Director in the Information and Public Relations Department, in which post he is currently working. 2. While so, one Devsahayam, the 3rd respondent in this Crl.O.P, preferred a complaint on 08.05.2015 to the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai. The gist of that complaint for cheating is that large sums of money were received by several persons on the representation that jobs would be secured in the Transport Department. The allegations were that the persons involved in cheating had played fraud and appropriate action be taken against the individuals. The complaint was forwarded to the 2nd respondent, the Inspector of Police, (Job racketing wing), Central Crime Branch. A case in Cr.No.441 of 2015 for offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w. 34 Indian Penal Code was registered by the Inspector of Police on 29.10.2015. It may be stated that in that complaint, Devasahayam had not said a word against the petitioner. 3. When the investigation in the above Cr.No.441 of 2015 was pending, one Mr.Gopi approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Crl. O.P. No.7503 of 2016. In that Crl.O.P, Gopi sought directions to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai to register a case on his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter to Government seeking sanction for prosecution. It also came to light that on 05.03.2021 Secretary to Government passed orders granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and another person. The said order had come into public domain which enabled the petitioner to access the same. 9. Further contended that the petitioner no way connected with the cash-for-Job Scam and the Prevention of Corruption Act 17 (a) came into effect on 26.07.2018. The application of Section 17 (a) P.C.Act in this case is unsustainable. Though the alleged offences had been committed allegedly in the year 2014-2015 and action against the petitioner commenced only in September 2020. The investigating Agency had not followed the mandate in Section 17 (a) of the P.C. Act. In the light of the amendment of 2018, under Section 19 (1)(b) sanction to prosecute the petitioner was obtained. The investigating Agency not complied with the requirement of Section 17 (a) of the P.C.Act. 10. To support of his argument, he relied upon the following judgments: (a).Kailash Chandra Agarwal ors Vs. State of Rajasthan ors, S.B.Criminal Misc (Pet) No.159/2018 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not different. The ingredients of the new sec 13(1) and the erstwhile sec 13(1)(d) of the PC Act are being completely different, the institution of prosecution for offence under 13(1)(d) of the Act after 26.07.2018 is not permissible and thus, pleaded to quash the criminal proceedings in the Criminal Original Petition. 23. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner (Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner have filed two Crl.M.P.Nos.12532 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12528 of 2022 to implead them as a party in Crl.O.P.Nos.13914 of 2021 and in Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 respectively. 2. The Directorate of Enforcement issued summon to Mr.Senthil Balaji and others in pursuance of an investigation under Enforcement Case Information Report bearing No.ECIR /MDSZO/21/2021 dated 29.07.2021 was recorded by the department and thereafter, investigation under the provisions of PML Act was initiated. It is registered on the basis of the abovesaid three FIRs namely, Crime Nos.298 of 2017, 441 of 2015 and 344 of 2018 as the FIRs were registered for scheduled offences as sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rl. O.P. No.13914 of 2021 and also contended that denovo investigation is not required as the case is already investigated and filed a detailed final report. Therefore, seeking de-novo investigation trial is also not sustainable and pleaded to dismiss the Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 and thus, pleaded to implead them as a party to the proceedings. 24. The argument placed by the learned counsel appearing for Anti Corruption Movement Rep.by its Central Secretary in the impleading petitions. 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.10504 of 2021, 10808 of 2021 and 10818 of 2021 to implead them as a party in Crl.R.C.No.224 of 2021, Crl. O.P. No.6621 of 2021 Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021respectively. 2. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioners, namely Mr.Devasagayam, Mr.Gobi, Mr.Arunkumar colluded and have conspired to mislead this Court by filing these petitions to escape the first accused from the clutches of the criminal cases. 3. The defacto complainant Mr.Devasagayam gave a complaint, initially based on which, the case has been registered in FIR No.44 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon this Court, the petitioner has to be impleaded in the interest of justice. If the petitioner is not impleaded in the petition, this Court will be left out without any assistance which may result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, pleaded to implead the petitioner as one of the respondent in the abovesaid Criminal Revision Case and Criminal Original Petitions and thus, pleaded to allow these criminal miscellaneous petitions. 25. The argument of the learned counsel in impleading petitions namely, Crl.M.P.Nos.10209 of 2021, 10210 of 2021 11925 of 2021 filed by Dharmaraj Nambi Venkatesh in Crl.O.P.Nos.13914 of 2021 and 15122 of 2021 respectively. 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner Dharmaraj complainant has completed Mechanical Engineering from KSR College of Technology with 76% of marks, he is eligible to be appointed as Assistant Engineer in the State Transport Corporation undertaking and he fulfilled his requisite qualification for the said post. In the year 2014, the MTC Chennai issued advertisement No.101-05- MTC 2014 dated 02.11.2011 for filling up the vacancies in various posts. The petitioner also applied fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f candidates and their appointments as Junior Engineer in MTC, pursuant to the recruitment notice in 2014. He also gave statement before the Assistant Commissioner of police during the time of investigation of case in Crime No.441 of 2015 in C.C.No.24 of 2021, he is arrayed as one of the prosecution witnesses as LW87 in C.C.No.24 of 2021. Under the above circumstances, the complainant and the accused colluded with each other and filed this case to quash the criminal proceedings. 4. The learned counsel further contended that in view of the law declared by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303, offence of serious nature cannot be permitted to be compounded. Therefore, this petitioner has to be impleaded as a respondent. The prayer for reinvestigation is not legally sustainable. The offences involved are serious offences of corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act, which are not compoundable and thus, pleaded to implead the petitioner as one of the respondents in the concerned criminal original petition and the learned counsel further pleaded to dismiss the criminal original petition and the criminal revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ensic Department filed the final report improperly. They have examined witnesses as a formality. In support his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel cited the para 10 of the affidavit filed by Mr.S.Surendaran, Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB (Job Racket Wing) in Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.8249 of 2021. The learned counsel further contended that not only fair trial but fair investigation is also part of Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In this case, the investigation is not fair and transparent. The Investigating Agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. In this case, the investigation is not in accordance with law. In such a situations, in the interest of justice, this High Court should order a fresh investigation. Thus, pleaded to order de-novo investigation in all the criminal cases to find out the truth. 27. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.E.Raj Thilak, for the State submitted that the State police in compliance with the order of this Court collected all material evidence in all the three criminal cases and filed a final report. Because of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criminal case in C.C.No.19 of 2020 one of the accused Mr.Sahayarajan (A3) filed a Crl. O.P. No.13914 of 2021 to quash the abovesaid criminal proceedings on the ground that the offence in the case is compoundable besides he had settled the dispute with the defacto complainant Mr.Ganesh Kumar and other Victims connected with the complaint in FIR No.298 of 2017. 32. With regard to C.C.No.24 of 2021 (Crime No.441 of 2015) one of the accused Mr.Vetrichelvan (A10) filed Crl.O.P.6621 of 2021 to quash the abovesaid criminal proceedings against him on the ground that he was only a Public Relation Officer and not participated in the recruitment process besides the alleged sanction for prosecution does not meet the mandatory requirement of law and invalid which vitiated the criminal proceedings against him. 33. Further, with regard to C.C.No. 24 of 2021 the complainant Mr.Devasagayam filed Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 wherein he seeks for a de-novo investigation of the case in C.C.No.24 of 2021 on the ground that while filing the final report on 13.06.2017 in C.C.No.3627 of 2017 the Investigating Agency cited 7 accused alone for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419 420 r/w 34 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iminal complaints arose out of the very same cash-for-job scam as a matter of fact the State ought to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam. 38. In view of the abovesaid pronouncement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in one of the criminal cases i.e. C.C.No.25 of 2021, the judgment has directed bearing upon this remaining two criminal cases i.e. C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.24 of 2021. 39. Criminal Revision Petition No.224 of 2021 The learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioner challenged the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.7968 of 2020 in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the ground that the petitioner Mr.V.Senthil Balaji was implicated in the criminal case in political vengeances since he came out of ADAIMK party and joined DMK party then become Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise. Further contention is that no material is available against the petitioner to frame charge against him. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The respondent police prosecuted the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420and 506(i) IPC. The trial Court dismissed the discharge petition on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different foo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners besides I find no good reason for quashing the criminal case in C.C.No.19 of 2020 against the petitioner and no merit in the criminal O.P.No.13914 of 2021, hence, dismissed. 46. Criminal Original Petition No. 6621 of 2021. The petitioner Mr.Vetrichelvan is the 10 th accused in C.C.No.24 of 2021(Crime No.441 of 2015). The petitioner seeks to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2021 against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner contention is that the petitioner was working as Public Relation Officer from 16.11.2012 to 26.06.2013 and from 2014 to 31.07.2015 at Metropolitan Magistrate Corporation, Chennai. Now, working as Joint Director in the Information and Public Relations Department, he had not participated in the recruitment process and not a member in the selection board, he no way connected in the selection process and appointment all were done by the recruitment board. Further contended that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner was obtained in the light of amendment to Section 19(i)(b) in 2018 but the alleged offences has been committed in the year 2014-2015. The investigating agency is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of trial. 50. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. The State of Haryana Vs.Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426. 51. An overall perusal of the material placed before me makes out no good ground in favour of the petitioner /accused Vetrichelvan (A10) for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2021. At this stage, this Court cannot analysis and meticulously considered the evidence and anticipate whether it will end up in conviction or acquittal, this is not the stage to decide whether there is any truth in the allegations made, the guilt or otherwise of the accused, can be proved only after conducting a fullfledged trial. In the circumstances, in my opinion, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the criminal proceedings and quash the final report for charge sheet submitted by the police. I find no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I find no merit in the criminal O.P.No.6621 of 2021, hence, dismissed. 52. Criminal Original pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blic Service Commission Vs. Papaiah AIR 1997 SC 3876 and also against the principle stated by our High Court in C.Ve.Shanmugam S/o.Venugopal Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2010 2 MLJ criminal page 833. 55. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the investigating agency seized the register used for entering the interview marks and forwarded to Forensic Department for analysis in order to decipher the manipulations but so far not received the report from the Forensic Department without knowing the result of the report with the formal statement recorded from the stack witnesses filed the final report unfairly. The learned counsel strongly relied upon in para 10 16 of the affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police in Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.8249 of 2021. Thus, without completing investigation in Crime No.441 of 2015 filed the final report. 56. Further contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the final report is misconceive with irrelevant facts, it does not disclose the real crime occurred. The petitioner s complaint was against persons namely, Mr.Baskar and Mr.Kesavan, who have introduced themselves and got money, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rime No,.441 of 2015) the investigating agency in the final report/charge sheet charged the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the remaining two criminal cases in C.C.No.19 of 2020 in C.C.No.25 of 2021) not charged under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This fact was noted by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1514 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1354 of 2022) (P.Dharmaraj Vs. Shanmugam Ors.) and directed to conduct further investigation in C.C.No.25 of 2021. 61. As per the further fact of the case, it would be beyond doubt that the matter in question is interconnected with the matter in C.C.No.25 of 2021 (FIR No.344 of 2018). The Hon ble Supreme Court, while disposing the abovesaid criminal appeal, made a strong suggestion to the State to undertake a comprehensive investigation with the entire scam. In Para 48 of the Judgment As a matter of fact, the State ought to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam, without allowing the accused to fish out one case as if it was a private money dispute. 62. There is a need for maintaining a balance between rights of an accused and the rights of an individ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2021 alone. 68. It cannot be disputed that even after filing of the charge sheet and taking cognizance by the Court, the police has ample power to investigate further the crime. Since the ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether offence alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it. 69. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the Case of Rishbud Vs.State of Delhi MANU/SC/0049/1954 has observed that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance of the case has been taken by the Court and further investigation can be ordered even after the charge sheet is submitted. 70. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hasanabhai Vallibhai Quresh Vs.State of Gujarat and others 2004 (2) Crimes 145 (SC) observed that the factor of delay of trial must not deter the hands of the investigating agency or the Courts where further investigation is necessary. 71. The right of police to make repeated investigation was recognized by this Court as early as in 1919 in the case Divakar Singh Vs.A.Ramamurthi Naidu MANU/TN/0012/1918 72. Therefore, further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aranteed Under Article 21 of the Constitution as a fair trial, without which the trial will naturally not be fair. . . . .. 76. Further, the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and other (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 182, while considering Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. observed that the language of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C cannot limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for fresh investigation or reinvestigation if the High Court is satisfied that such fresh investigation or reinvestigation is necessary to secure the ends of justice. 77. In the present criminal cases, the investigation has significantly suffered for not getting Forensic Document Analysis report with regard to registers used for entering the interview marks besides suffered due to peace meal and disruptive approach of the investigating agencies. The investigation has most importantly suffered due to multiple petition filed before this High Court and further investigations at the instance of different parties at different stages it is important to keep in mind that all the criminal complaints in C.C.No.19 of 2020, C.C.No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. In medical negligence claim, the law draws a distinction between primary and secondary victims. A primary victim is the patient, who has suffered the alleged negligence; secondary victim is a person, who suffers injury, as a result of the negligence suffered by the primary victim. 83. In this case, the petitioners viz., Mr.Nambi Venkatesh, Mr.Dharmaraj, are non selected candidates in the recruitment process in the State Transport Corporation and the Anti Corruption Movement petitioners are not bribe givers for getting jobs further they are not complainants in the abovesaid three complaints (FIR Nos.441 of 2015, 298 of 2017, 344 of 2018), therefore, they are not direct victims, may be indirect victims. The locus of the petitioners are confined only to assisting the investigating agency and the Court through State Public Prosecutor otherwise the petitioners have no independent right in the conduct or hearing of the proceedings. Further, the Directorate of Enforcement Authority has independent jurisdiction under the PML Act to take action against the offender, therefore, need not file impleading petitions in the criminal proceedings, it is unwarranted. Further, the other two p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
