(Petition filed to call for the records and quash the complaint First Information Report registered against the Petitioner in Cr.No.23/04 on the file of the Inspector of Police, City General Crime Branch, Tirunelveli.)

Crl.O.P.No.5789/2004 :- This Petition is filed to quash the First Information Report registered against the Petitioner Lakshmana Perumal in Cr.No.23/2004 of City General Crime Branch, (CGCB), Tirunelveli City, registered under offences u/s 384, 385, 506(ii) and 120B IPC.

Crl.M.P.No.2250 of 2004:- This Petition is filed to stay the further investigation in Cr.No.23/2004. On 15.12.2004, when OP was admitted, interim stay of further investigation was granted.

Crl.M.P.No.2242/2005:- This Petition is filed by the Inspector of Police, City General Crime Branch, to vacate the stay granted in Crl.M.P.No.2250/2004 on 15.12.2004.

Crl.M.P.No.1873/2005:- This Petition is filed to permit the Petitioner G.Srinivasan, Joint Managing Director, TGIs to intervene in Crl.O.P.No.5789/2004.

2.Gist of the complaint which led to the registration of the case in Cr.No.23/2004 (CGCB) could briefly be stated thus:-

M/s.Transworld Granite India Pvt. Ltd (in short, TGI) is a subsidiary of Western Garnet International Inc., a Canadian Company. The companys major business is mining, processing and exporting of Almandite Garnet. The Companys factory and other works are located at Tuticorin and Tirunelveli where a number of other concerns also are carrying on the same business. M/s.Transworld Granite India Pvt. Ltd. is stated to be conducting business in accordance with law, after securing licenses and permissions required from the Central and State Government Authorities. Sukumar (A-2) is the proprietor of Beach Sand Mineral Company. Without provocation from the complainant company, A-2 developed animosity towards M/s.Transworld Granite India Pvt. Ltd due to business rivalry. At the instigation of the said Sukumar, A-1 - Lakshmana Perumal, claiming to be the Secretary, Indian Industrial Mineral Producers Welfare Association, Chennai, has lodged a false complaint before the District Crime Branch against R.Srinivasan Chairman cum Managing Director; on the basis of which, a case was registered in Cr.No.25/04, District Crime Branch, (in short, DCB), Tirunelveli, u/s 124(A) and 506(ii) IPC. R.Srinivasan was arrested on 16.8.2004 and he was remanded to Palayamkottai jail. Complainant R.Srinivasan was threatened and coerced and was put to constant threat. By putting him in fear and coercion and harassment, (i)the company was forced to convey 34.87 Acres located in Madavankurichi Village and Sale Deed was executed by Suriyanarayanan, General Manager of the Company, in favour of Elango nominee of A-2 - Sukumar; (ii)Complainant was shifted to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. By putting him in constant fear and harassment and due to pressure, the Joint Managing Director G.Srinivasan (Petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1873/2005) transferred 26% shares to A-3 - Selvaraj, who is also A-2s representative.

Further case of the complainant is that the case in Cr.No.25/04, DCB, was registered only at the instance of A-2 Sukumar. Only for the purpose of putting the complainant R.Srinivasan in constant fear and threat and thereby, forcibly getting conveyance of property and surrender of 26% of the shares, a false case was registered against R.Srinivasan. Alleging extortion, threat and false criminal accusation that he was forced to convey the immovable property of 34.87 Acres and transfer 26% of shares. Complainant R.Srinivasan lodged the complaint before the CGCB on the basis of which case in Cr.No.23/2004 has been registered.

3.The Petitioner/Lakshmana Perumal/A-1 seeks to quash the First Information Report in Cr.No.23/04. Case of the complainant is that M/s.Transworld Granite India Pvt. Ltd, a subsidiary of a foreign company having 74% of foreign equity of the Canada Company, Western Garnet International, has obtained mining license from the Government of India and producing Garnets. In the year 1998, Government of India Department of Atomic Energy announced a policy on exploitation of beach and mineral. The said policy has created entry banner for the foreign companies to mine Minerals spread on beach sand. Since M/s.Transworld Granite India Pvt. Ltd had obtained licenses from the Department of Atomic Energy, which goes against the spirit and substance of the policy, the Petitioner made complaints to various departments. Since there was no action from the Government, the Petitioner formed an association viz., Indian Industrial Mineral Producers Welfare Association, which was registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The Petitioner has filed W.P.No.13980/2004 seeking certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the license granted to M/s.Transworld Granite India Pvt. Ltd and also Earth Minerals Resources Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, Writ Petition was also filed in the High Court of Hyderabad in W.P.No.12750/2004. Pursuant to the order of injunction granted by the High Court, the Department of Atomic Energy cancelled the licenses issued to M/s.Transworld Granite India Pvt. Ltd. Because of the acts of the Petitioner - (Lakshmana Perumal), R.Srinivasan, Managing Director of M/s.Transworld Granite India Pvt. Ltd has developed animosity. He has been threatening the Petitioner and hence the Petitioner lodged a complaint before the DCB, Tirunelveli. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered against R.Srinivasan, Managing Director, TGI, in Cr.No.25/04 u/s 124(A) and 506(ii) IPC. In the said case, R.Srinivasan was arrested and was granted interim bail by the Principal Sessions Court on 20.8.2004. Subsequently, regular bail was also granted to the said R.Srinivasan on 25.8.2004. After being released, the complainant R.Srinivasan has lodged a false complaint before the City General Crime Branch, Tirunelveli on 9.9.2004 against the Petitioner and others. Based on the said complaint, case has been registered against the Petitioner A-1 and Sukumar A-2, Selvaraj A-3, Nominee of Sukumar, A-4 Appavu MLA, A-5 Associates of Sukumar.

4.This Petition is filed to quash the First Information Report in Cr.No.23/04, contending that no primafacie case is made out against the Petitioner. Allegations made in the complaint/First Information Report do not disclose any cognizable offence against the Petitioner and the essential ingredients of the offence is not made out. Alleging that the complaint is malafide and inherently improbable, the Petitioner has filed this Petition for quashing the First Information Report in Cr.No.23/04.

5.The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused has contended that there is unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. It is further contended that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, they do not constitute an offence demanding either registration of the case or commencement and continuance of the investigation. Contending that it would be unjust to allow the First Information Report and the investigation to be proceeded with, the learned counsel has inter-alia urged the following points :-

1.that the complainant/R.Srinivasan was granted interim bail on 20.8.2004 and regular bail on 25.8.2004; but the complaint was preferred only on 9.9.2004 after enormous unexplained delay of nearly fifteen days;

2.only in the general interest to preserve the sand Minerals and its precious substance, the Petitioner/A-1 has given the complaint in his capacity as Secretary, Indian Industrial Mineral Producers Welfare Association and in no way connected with the allegations levelled in the Cr.No.23/04;

3.no specific overt act is attributed against the Petitioner/Lakshmana Perumal."

On the above submissions, the learned counsel for the Petitioner prays to quash the First Information Report and further investigation as against the Petitioner A-1.

6.Countering the arguments, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has submitted that in Cr.No.23/04, grave allegations of coercion and extortion is alleged and that further investigation is to be allowed to be proceeded with. Submitting that case in Cr.No.25/04 has been referred as "Mistake of fact", the learned Government Advocate has contended that there are several grounds for proceeding with the investigation in this case in Cr.No.23/04. It is further stated that the delay in lodging the complaint cannot be the reason to quash the First Information Report. Prosecution has submitted the typed set of papers containing the statement of witnesses recorded in Cr.No.23/04 and Referred Charge Sheet in Cr.No.25/04 DCB and the copy of the Sale Deeds and transfer of 26% shares and other documents.

7.Joint Managing Director R.Srinivasan has filed Crl.M.P.No.1873/2005 seeking permission to intervene. The learned counsel Mr.P.H.Pandian has submitted that the exparte interim stay would hamper the further investigation in the case where serious allegations are levelled. Submitting that the victim is a forgotten individual in the criminal jurisprudence and the interest of complainant is to be protected, the learned counsel prayed for permitting the further investigation to be proceeded with. Placing reliance upon AIR 1992 SC 604 [LQ/SC/1990/744] , the learned counsel has submitted that the investigation being exclusive province of the police, the Investigating Agency cannot be prevented from proceeding with the further investigation.

8.Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the First Information Report in both cases and the typed set of papers filed by the prosecution, the following points arise for consideration in this Petition.

1.Whether there is existence of reasons to suspect the commission of the cognizable offence

2.Whether there are uncontroverted allegations in the First Information Report; whether the allegations on the face value do not constitute a cognizable offence

3.Whether it would be unjust to allow the criminal investigation in Cr.No.23/04 to be continued

9.By a combined reading of sections 154, 156, 157 and 159 of Crl.P.C, it is clear that on receipt of information of a commission of cognizable offence, a statutory duty is cast upon the police officer to register a case. If the police officer has reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, he must either proceed with the investigation or cause the investigation to be proceeded with by his subordinate. In case where the police Officer sees no sufficient ground for investigation, he can dispense with the investigation altogether. Time and again, it has been held that registration of the case and the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the area of the Investigating Agencies, over which Courts cannot have control, nor have power to intervene in the proceedings of the investigation, so long as the investigation proceeds in correct direction. Though the domain of the investigation is exclusively with the Investigating Agency, to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice in exercising the power u/s 482 Crl.P.C, Court can interfere with the investigation. But that power should be exercised sparingly and in rare cases.

10.Elaborately discussing the statutory duty of the Investigating Agency to register the case and to proceed with the investigation, circumstances in which the Court could interfere with the First Information Report, in AIR 1992 SC 604 [LQ/SC/1990/744] , (State of Haryana and others Vs.Bhajan Lal and others) the Supreme Court has enumerated the following aspects:

"1.Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not primafacie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Accused.

2.Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code.

3.Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the Accused.

4.Where, the allegations in the F.I.R do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.

5.Where the allegations made in the F.I.R or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused.

6.Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7.Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

Where the allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of F.I.R was not justified.

12.The central point involved is whether the allegations in the First Information Report in Cr.No.23/04 do not constitute cognizable offence and whether it would be unjust to allow the criminal investigation to be continued.

13.In the complaint, the complainant R.Srinivasan - Chairman cum Managing Director, TGI has alleged that due to business rivalry, a false case has been registered against him in Cr.No.25/04 DCB. It is further alleged that putting him in a constant fear and coercion, he was compelled to instruct his General Manager Mr.Suriyanarayanan to convey 34.87 acres Madavankurichi village, which was forcibly conveyed to A-2 Sukumar. It is his further case that on 19.8.2004, he was shifted to Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli where the individuals connected with BMC continued to coerce him and due to coercion and threat, TGI was forced to surrender 26% of shares to A-3 - Selvaraj on 20.8.2004, by G.Srinivasan, Joint Managing Director.

14.To appreciate the allegations in the complaint, it is relevant to refer to the dates and the happenings referred thereon:

Cr.No.25/04 DCB, Tirunelveli

u/s 124(A) and 506(ii)IPC

Registered on ... 10.08.2004

(in which Petitioner Lakshmana

Perumal is the complainant)

R.Srinivasan arrested on ... 16.08.2004

He was shifted to

Medical College Hospital,

Tirunelveli ... 19.08.2004

Released on Interim Bail ... 20.08.2004

Sale Deeds executed in favour of

Elango ... 18.08.2004

Transfer of Share certificates

to Selvaraj ... 20.08.2004

Regular bail granted ... 25.08.2004

15.Even taken its on face value, the allegations in the complaint do constitute "reason to suspect commission of cognizable offence". From the above dates, it is clear that Chairman cum Managing Director R.Srinivasan was in custody in Cr.No.25/04. While he was so in custody, transactions had taken place. On 18.8.2004, the Sale Deeds Document Nos.899 to 903/2004 were executed in favour of Elango by Suriyanarayana, General Manager, TGI, in the office of Sub Registrar, Udankudi; under the Sale Deeds, conveying an extent of 34.87 acres in Madvankurichi. Further, transfer of shares were being handed over to Selvaraj by the Joint Managing Director G.Srinivasan. The details of transfer of shares is as noted below:

"Sub: Transfer of Shares being handed over.

The receipt of the following four share scripts

along with the share transfer form duly signed by the transferor is hereby acknowledged.

Sd.S.Selvaraj "

16.Thus the conveyance of land and transfer of 26% of shares in TGI had taken place while the Chairman cum Managing Director was in custody in the criminal case in Cr.No.25/04. The criminal case accusation custody, primafacie amounts to fear of injury and confinement, which primafacie attract the provision of Section 384 IPC. The guilt or innocence of R.Srinivasan in Cr.No.24/04 is immaterial. The fact that he was in confinement in connection with criminal case is relevant to be noted. Hence the police officer who registered the case in Cr.No.23/04 had primafacie reason to suspect that the transfer of the land and 26% of shares in TGI might have been obtained under coercion and threat. The Investigating Officer had every reason to suspect commission of cognizable offence. On receipt of information/complaint, commission of cognizable offence, statutory duty was cast upon the Investigating Officer to register a case. It cannot be said that the allegations in the complaint were so improbable, rendering the registration of the case as a abuse of process.

17.The main contention urged by the Petitioner is that he was only the complainant in Cr.No.25/04, DCB, and that complaint was lodged by him in his capacity as the Secretary of Indian Industrial Mineral Producers Welfare Association and he has no personal motive against M/s.Transworld Granite India Pvt. Ltd or R.Srinivasan. In W.M.P.No.14461/2004, interim injunction was also granted restraining TGI from mining and selling of Almandite Garnet a precious substance and pursuant to the order of interim injunction, Department of Atomic Energy has also cancelled the license issued and no personal animosity could be attributed against the Petitioner A-1. It is further submitted that the allegations in the complaint in Cr.No.23/04 (CGCB) are levelled only against the other Accused and no specific overt act is attributed against the Petitioner/A-1 and hence the First Information Report against A-1 is to be quashed. This contention does not merit acceptance. Basis of threat and coercion proceeds only from the registration of the case in Cr.No.25/04, DCB, resulting in arrest and confinement of complainant/R.Srinivasan. The entire allegations are based on the basis of lodging of criminal complaint in Cr.No.25/2004, which is stated to be due to business rivalry. The contention of the Petitioner that no specific overt act is attributed against him has no substance.

18.Under Section 154(1) Crl.P.C, a statutory duty is cast upon the police to register a cognizable offence. U/s 156(1), the Investigating Officer has a statutory right to investigate any cognizable case without requiring any sanction of the Magistrate. However, the said statutory right to investigate a cognizable offence is subject to the fulfilment of a prerequisite condition, contemplated in Section 157(1) Crl.P.C. The condition is that the officer in charge of a police station, before proceeding to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, should have "reason to suspect" the commission of an offence which he is empowered u/s 156 Crl.P.C to investigate. Accordingly, on registration of the complaint in Cr.No.23/04, the Investigating Officer proceeded with the investigation.

19.In his affidavit, Inspector of Police, CGCB, Tirunelveli has stated that during the course of the investigation, he has examined eight witnesses and that the investigation is in the initial stages and that in view of the material evidence collected, it is necessary to carry on further investigation. In the typed set of papers filed by the prosecution, statements recorded from the eight witnesses and the copy of the Sale Deeds and document evidencing Transfer of 26% of Shares are produced. By a perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen that the Investigating Officer has examined the following seven witnesses (apart from the complainant R.Srinivasan), to speak to the facts as noted below:-

Suriyanarayanan

General Manager of TGI ... To speak to the factum of instruction from R.Srinivasan to execute the Sale Deed Document Nos.899/04 to 903/04 to Elango, nominee of Sukumar and that the Sale Deeds were executed by him under threat.

Kumar Assistant in TGI in charge of Management ...To speak about arrest of R.Srinivasan and his confinement and threat by the Accused threatening to execute the Sale Deeds to convey land and 26% of shares of TGI.

G.Srinivasan Joint Managing Director ... To speak to the functioning of TGI the company TGI and the arrest and custody of R.Srinivasan and threat to R.Srinivasan and instruction of R.Srinivasan over phone to transfer 26% of share; transfer of 26% of Shares of TGI to Selvaraj.

V.M.Christopher and Ganapathi Owner and Watchman of house where the Accused ... To speak to the meeting of are said to have minds of Sukumar and other assembled. Accused Appavu MLA and others and their meeting in the house of Christopher on 17.8.2004

Baby John Sub Registrar, Udankudi ... To speak to the execution of Sale Deeds Document Nos.899 to 903/04 executed in favour of Elango and to speak to the fact that in violation of the Rules of Sub Registrars Office, documents have been registered at 9.00 pm on 18.8.2004.

Sudalai Stamp Vendor, Udankudi ... To speak to the fact that the Stamp papers were sold to Elango at 2.15 pm on 18.8.04.

This Court has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made, and on the above materials collected. Suffice it to point out that the materials collected, primafacie, indicate the proceeding of the investigation in its correct direction. When the investigation is proceeding in its correct direction, it would be improper for the Court to interfere with the area of investigation which is exclusively within the domain of the Investigating Agency.

20.It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the case in Cr.No.25/04 registered against R.Srinivasan has been referred as "Mistake of fact". In the Refer Charge Sheet filed in the typed set of papers, it is stated that the case in Cr.No.25/04 has been lodged at the instigation of Sukumar, owner of Beach Sand Minerals Company and after investigation, the Investigating Officer - DCB, Tirunelveli has arrived at the conclusion that the a false complaint has been lodged and that the same was referred as "Mistake of fact".

21.Onbehalf of the Petitioner, main contention is urged that there is inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. The complainant R.Srinivasan was released on interim bail on 20.08.2004; regular bail was granted to him on 25.08.2004; complaint was lodged in Cr.No.23/04 only on 9.9.2004. Hence it is contended that there is an unexplained delay of nearly fifteen days and that the complainant was gaining time for deliberation and to make a false complaint against the Petitioner/A-1 and other Accused. At this stage, the merits of this contention can not be gone into. It is not for the Court to appreciate the correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the complaint on account of delay. Suffice it to point out that the delay in lodging the complaint cannot be the ground for quashing the First Information Report.

22.It is well settled that when prosecution is sought to be quashed at the initial stage, course to be adopted by the Court is as to whether uncontroverted allegations has primafacie established the offence. The jurisdiction u/s 482 Crl.P.C has the exercised sparingly and in rare cases. In 1988 4 SCC 655 [LQ/SC/1988/527] , (State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan), the Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Crl.P.C has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that in exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. When considered in the light of the allegations in the complaint and materials collected during the investigation, there is nothing to suggest that the registration of the First Information Report and the investigation is with malafide and maliciously instituted. The contention of the Petitioner that with a view to wreak vengeance due to personal rivalry has no merits.

23.The inherent powers of the High Court do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction upon the High Court to interfere with the investigation, which is the exclusive realm of police. It is a well settled proposition that if the Court interferes with the investigation, the offender might go unpunished, causing serious detriment to the welfare of the society. We may usefully refer to the observations of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1982 SC 949 [LQ/SC/1982/36] (State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha), which reads:

"..... the legal position is well-settled. The legal position appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed; if, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted ............. once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interests of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. The liberty and property of an individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the Court zealously guards them and protects them. An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a proper investigation in the interests of justice becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence, and for bringing the offender to book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed; the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a peson who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed."

24.Whether an offence has been disclosed or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In the case on hand, on consideration of the relevant materials, this Court sees every reason to presume that the offence has been disclosed from the allegations made in the First Information Report. When that being so, the Court would not normally interfere with the investigation. The investigation has to be allowed to be continued and completed, after collecting the materials. This Petition filed seeking for quashing the First Information Report has no merits and is bound to fail.

25.Crl.O.P.No.5789/2004 :-

This Petition filed to quash the First Information Report (in Cr.No.23/04 CGCB, Tirunelveli) registered against the Petitioner Lakshmana Perumal is dismissed.

26.Crl.M.P.Nos.2242 and 1874/2005:- These Petitions filed by the Inspector of Police, City General Crime Branch, Tirunelveli, and the intervener respectively, to vacate the stay granted in Crl.M.P.No.2250/2004 are allowed. Interim Stay granted in Crl.M.P.No.2250/04 is vacated.

27.Crl.M.P.No.2250 of 2004:-

This Petition filed to stay the further investigation in Cr.No.23/2004 is dismissed.

28.Crl.M.P.No.1873/2005:-

This Petition filed to permit the Petitioner G.Srinivasan (defacto complainant) to intervene in Crl.O.P.No.5789/2004 is ordered accordingly.