Investigation
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 27 May 2010
This query is : Resolved
I had made a complaint to Dept. of Administrative and Public Grievances cell New Delhi that a builder had approached many NRIs in Gulf to invest in a project of his at Kodaikannal Tamilnadu back in 1995. He was bringing up 24 cottages in an area of 1.5 acres of land. Lured by him many an investors including me together put a crore of rupee. The project never came up completely and most of the cottages are in semi finished stage still. More to our shock the promoter did not have even permission from local authorities to make a layout or got approval of building plan.
The DARPG Cell had after going through my complaint found justification and forwarded it to CM Special cell Tamilnadu which in turn classified it to be a criminal case and sent it to Commissioner of Police Chennai.
Am I to take that DARPG and CM Special Cell are satisfied that State had to initiate a case against the promoter?.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 27 May 2010
once they have referred the matter to the Chennai Police Commissioner that means prima facie they have found it to be a criminal case....my advice to you is follow the proceedings carefully and firmly....provide the IO with all the relevant documentary & oral evidence so that the guilty may be booked as according to law.
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 28 May 2010
Thanks for your answers. I made my complaint as a Public Grievance as individually I got some benefit from following with consumer forum in getting possession of my cottage. The consumer forum could not give relief to me that are of common cause like layout and building plan approvals. I tried with a Magistrate Court and then with the consumer forum on sec 340 crpc for offences committed under sec 195 cr.pc. (sec 199 IPC). But the problem was the main case was closed and I was awarded compensation.
The documents due to above proceedings have run to a volume and as suggested I had to spend extra time to be carful in assisting the Police to book the wrong doer. The local authorities at Kodaikanal had turned a blind eye when the builder started the project without approvals and this point is going to be an embarrassing one in future proceedings for the Government of Tamilnadu.
As follow up action should I be behind the Police Authorities or Thanks for your answers. I made my complaint as a Public Grievance as individually I got some benefit from following with consumer forum in getting possession of my cottage. The consumer forum could not give relief to me that are of common cause like layout and building plan approvals. I tried with a Magistrate Court and then with the consumer forum on sec 340 crpc for offences committed under sec 195 cr.pc. (sec 199 IPC). But the problem was the main case was closed and I was awarded compensation.
The documents due to above proceedings have run to a volume and as suggested I had to spend extra time to be carful in assisting the Police to book the wrong doer. The local authorities at Kodaikanal had turned a blind eye when the builder started the project without approvals and this point is going to be an embarrassing one in future proceedings for the Government of Tamilnadu.
As follow up action should I be behind the Police Authorities are wait for their action?
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 28 May 2010
Sorry the last post of mine got mutilated.
Thanks for your answers. I made my complaint as a Public Grievance as individually I got some benefit from following with consumer forum in getting possession of my cottage. The consumer forum could not give relief to me that are of common cause like layout and building plan approvals. I tried with a Magistrate Court and then with the consumer forum on sec 340 crpc for offences committed under sec 195 cr.pc. (sec 199 IPC). But the problem was the main case was closed and I was awarded compensation.
The documents due to above proceedings have run to a volume and as suggested I had to spend extra time to be carful in assisting the Police to book the wrong doer. The local authorities at Kodaikanal had turned a blind eye when the builder started the project without approvals and this point is going to be an embarrassing one in future proceedings for the Government of Tamilnadu.
As follow up action should I be behind the Police Authorities are wait?
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 28 May 2010
Dear Sri Siva Subramaniam
Thank you for your advice.
In fact the promoter of the project is only a power of attorney to an Inspector General of Police of Andhra Pradesh. Your observation that underhand dealings had to stopped urgently by taking prompt action in form of a letter to Commissioner of police appears to me a very opt one. I am only waiting for the normal time of expected date of action to end namely a month’s time from the date of forwarding of my complaint to Commissioner of Police by the CM Cell of Tamilnadu which was 20/5/2010.As a next event in the chain if Police also gets convinced that prima face that exists enough proof to State prosecutor to file a complaint to a magistrate that will be a great relief to me as all along I was battling in person before forums and court. The respondent will become enemy of state not just a party in a case with me.
I will be grateful if I could keep you posted on the coming events by getting your e-mail. Of course the Lawyers club will also be kept posted
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 08 June 2010
Dear Sri Kiran and Sri Subramaniam
I am given to understand that the commissioner of police had forwarded my complaint given to it through CM Cell Chennai to the Police Station in which juristiction the accused stays.
Will the police station make an FIR or will call me to sign a written statement before making the FIR?
W
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 13 June 2010
Dear Members,
While getting alerts on Sec 195 cr.pc I found a judgment of SC that rules out any quashing of investigation by poice on offences commited due to bar set under sec 195 cr.pc for courts to take action.
I am giving the same below.
this will be additional way to approach the poblm i am facing.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF PUNJAB
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJ SINGH AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/01/1998
BENCH:
M.K. MUKHERJEE, K.T. THOMAS
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
We are unable to sustain the impugned order of the High
Court quashing the F.I.R. lodged against the respondents
alleging commission of offences under Sections 467 and 468
I.P.C. by Chem in course of the proceeding of a civil suit,
on the ground that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C.
prohibited entertainment of and investigation into the same
by the police. From a plain reading of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
it is manifest that it comes into operation at the stage
when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offence
under Section 190(1) Cr. P.C.; and it has nothing to do with
the statutory power of the police to investigate into an
F.I.R. which discloses a cognisable offence, in accordance
with Chapter XII of the Code even if the offence is alleged
to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding
in Court. In other words, the statutory power of the Police
to investigate under the Code is not in any way controlled
or circumscribed by Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is of course true
that upon the charge-sheet (challan), if any, filed on
completion of the investigation into such an offence the
Court would not be competent to take cognizance thereof in
view of the embargo of Section 19591) (b) Cr. P. C. , but
nothing therein deters the Court from filing a complaint for
the offence on the basis of the F.I.R. (filed by the
aggrieved private party) and the materials collected during
investigation, provided it forms the requisite opinion and
follows the procedure laid down tin section 340 Cr. P.C. The
judgment of this Court in Gopal Krishna Menon and Anr. Vs.
D. Raja Reddy [AIR 1983 SC 1053], on which the High Court
relied, has no manner of application to the facts of the
instant case for there cognizance was taken on a private
complaint even though the offence of forgery was committed
in respect of a money receipt produced in the Civil Court
and hence it was held that the Court could not take
cognizance on such a complaint in view of Section 195 Cr. P.
C.
For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set
aside the impugned order.
may be some members get benifit also
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 25 July 2010
Dear MR. Kiran and Siva Subramaniam,
As advised by Advocate Siva Subramaniam I gave all information pertaining to my case to investigating officer of Police and then I sent an application under RTI asking for action taken information to Commissioner of Police. With in two days I got a copy of the letter that Commissioner of Police sent to respective section to intimate me with in 30 days on what is going on. With in a week I got a call from the IO of police to come to Police Stn and make a statement and sign. I did so. I was told by IO the accused will be asked to make a statement to them as well separately. The IO said they will send the statements to Commissioner office who will decide whether prima face a case is there to make an FIR.
This is contrary to the rules: as soon as the IO receives a complaint he had to make an FIR. In this case I did not give a complaint to IO directly but sent the complaint to CM Cell Tamilnadu which forwarded the same to commissioner of Police. Will the IO be answerable to Commissioner of Police or CM Cell only not to me directly?
