1. MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION
(Under Sec. 482)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
Crl. O.P. No. OF 2014
P.Chandira,M.E(M.B.A)(B.G.L),
W/o R.Thangavel,
E-77,Anna Road,
Block-27,
Neyveli-3,Cuddalore District. ------Petitioner/Complainant.
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Kavindapadi,Erode District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime,Erode District.
3. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Bhavani, Erode District.
4. Inspector of Police,
Bhavani, Erode District.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Bhavani, Erode District.
6. The Superintendent of Police,
Erode District.
7. The Director General of Police,
Chennai. ---Respondent/ Respondent.
CRIMINAL PETITION
The Petitioner begs to prefer this Memorandum of Criminal
Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
praying for a direction to call for the records of the respondents and quash
the report of the fourth respondent and proceedings in CMP.No.9869 of
2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Bhavani, and the report
of the fifth respondent and Proceedings in CMP.No:10510/14 and the
Proceedings in O.S.No:147/13 and in I.A.No:557/13 on the file of the
2. Principle District Munisiff,Bhavani and consequently directing the
respondents to register the case against the accused who fabricated “Forgery
Will”dated:02.06.1999 for forensic investigation and finger print
investigation and change of further investigation to CBCID and for the
departmental action against them as directed by the Director, Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption,Aryapuram Chennai Lr No:936/2014/POL/ER
dated:17.02.2014 based upon my compliant of the petitioner
dated:15.01.2014 to the seventh respondent on the following among other
grounds.
GROUNDS
1. The officials of the first respondent office refused to receive
compliant on 06.09.2013.Even though the compliant submitted
by post on 06.09.2013, he has not conducted proper inquiry to
find out the facts of case and simply recorded CSR.No:168/13
Dated: 06.09.2013.Without conducting proper enquiry he
simply got legal opinion from the Government pleader without
submitting all the documents submitted by the compliant to the
first respondent and permitted the accused to escape from the
clutches of law.
2. Even though the second respondent received the compliant of
the compliant with eight pages of documents through the
Superintendent of police, Erode District, herein the sixth
respondent, he has not conducted proper inquiry to find out the
facts of case. Even though the complainant explained all the
facts to the investigating officer,instead of registering the
case,without conducting proper enquiry with the accused he
simply get legal opinion from the Government pleader to prevent
the accused to escape from the clutches of law.The Erode
District police are not acting in accordance with law.Hence,the
former Superintendant of police wants to transfer my compliant
to some other district.
3. 3. As per the sms message of the Superintendant of Police, Erode
District, the petitioner submitted compliant to the third
respondent which is recorded in CSRNo:477/13
Dated:25.11.2013. The third respondent conducted an enquiry
with the accused in presence of the complainant on
25.11.2013.The accused Purushothamman accepted his offence
that he has prepared the forgery will only seven months before
as per the request of an advocate clerk Thiru.Senthikumar.
Instead of taking necessary action to register the case against
the accused and permitted the accused to escape from the
clutches of law. The fourth respondent forced the approver
Thiru.Purushothamman and conducted discrete inquiry with
other accused violating rules and regulation and without
enquiring the complainant submitted wrong report to the
Judicial Magistrate Court-II,Bhavani.
4. Instead of considering documents submitted by the petitioner
and conducting enquiry with the accused in presence of the
complainant,the fourth respondent submitted wrong report to
the Judicial Magistrate Court-II,Bhavani.
5. The order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate,Bhavani,
in CMPNo: 9869/13 on 28.11.2013 is corrected later and
dismissed on 05.12.2013 without the knowledge of the
petitioner is against law and justice.
6. The learned Judge,J.M.Court,Bhavani has failed to note that the
enquiry conducted by the fourth respondent is in violation of
Principles of Natural Justice and failed to grant adequate
opportunity to the Petitioner herein to cross examine the
accused which is in violation of her fundamental rights.
7. The Learned Judge,J.M,Court,Bhavani ought to have allowed
the Petition filed by the Petitioner to call the accused for
4. examination before the Hon’ble Court in accordance with the
provisions of Section 311 of the CrPc and must have permitted
for forensic investigation and finger print investigation as
Thiru.Shanmugham,the Inspector of Police,Bhavani,
Thiru.Vijayakumar,the Sub-Inspector of Police,Bhavani,the
Deputy Superintendent of Police,Bhavani has failed to obey the
direction of law in accordance in CMP.No:9869/13 and in
CMP.No:10510/14 which is in violation of the Principles of
Natural Justice and caused torture to the approver
Thiru.Purushothamman as stated before the Sub-Inspector of
Police,Bhavani in the presence of the Petitioner on 25.11.2013
as per the CSR.No:477/13 registered on 25.11.2013 and they
failed to register the First Information Report against the
accused 1)P.Kolandavel 2)Gopalan 3)Murugan
4)Purushothamman &5)Subramanian.
8. The Trial Court has considered the Petition to cross examine the
accused on 05.12.2013 and adjourned to 18.12.2013. It is
submitted that the Section 311 of CrPC clearly stipulates that
the said Petition can be filed at any stage of the proceeding.
While so the Trial Court ought to have allowed the Petition to
call the accused before the Court. The trail court dismissed the
CMP.No:9868/13 without passing order in petition submitted
for cross examination is against law and justice.
9. The Inspector of Police,Kavindapadi,The Inspector of
Police,District Crime,The Inspector of Police,Bhavani,The
SubInspector of Police,Bhavani and the Deputy Superindentant
of Police,Bhavani,the Superintendent of Police,Erode District
failed to Register the case against the accused and permitting
the accused to escape from the clutches of law.
10. It is submitted that the Trial court had failed to note the Erode
District Police official has failed to conduct enquiry in
accordance with the principles of Natural Justice and to register
the case against the accused. The Trial court has already
5. adjourned the case to 18.12.2013 on 05.12.2013and on the
same day dismissed without permitting the petitioner to cross
examine the accused . The judgment passed on 05.12.2013 in
CMP.No:9869/13 which is arbitrary and unreasonable and
grave injustice to the petitioner.
11. The Trial Court has failed to grant adequate opportunity to the
Petitioner to examine himself as witness and which was
requested by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate Court
on 05.12.2013 which is in grave violation of the provisions of
the CRPC.
12. The Police Department of Erode District is not acting in
accordance with law the petitioner humbly prayed for the
investigation through CBCID or the police department has to
conduct an enquiry in the presence of the petitioner and permit
the petitioner to cross examine the accused.
13. It is submitted that it is a well settled principles of law that any
person can be summoned at any stage of criminal proceedings
where essential.
14. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs Union of India that the Power of
Court to recall any witness can be invoked even if the evidence
in both sides is closed so long as the court retains seisin of the
criminal proceedings.
15. In any event, the order dated 05.12.2013 passed by the Learned
Judicial Magistrate Bhavani in C.M.P. No. 9869 of 2013 is against
law, facts and evidence of the case and the same is not
maintainable in law.
16. Even though the trail Court passed an order in CMP.No:10510/14
submitted by the petitioner on 18.12.2013 on 21.02.2014 by
directing the fifth respondent to conduct enquiry and submit
6. report within thirty days from 21.02.2014.As the fifth respondent
failed to submit report before the Hon’ble Court,the Learned Judge
adjourned the case to 30.04.2014.The Petitioner submitted a
petition before the Hon’ble Court on 26.04.2014 for requesting
forensic investigation and to register the case.The Hon’ble Judge
refused to permit for forensic investigation.Hence the petitioner
takes necessary steps for private forensic report from the experts
at Chennai.Hence the Petitioner the submitted a petition before the
Hon’ble Court through his father P.P.Pattappan to adjourn the
case to 20.05.2014 to submit the report from forensic lab,Chennai
which is expected to be received on 19.05.2014. In the mean time
original Partition deed is missed,the compliant submitted to the
first respondent to conduct an enquiry with the Panchayatars and
the family members which is recorded in CSR and published in
daily newspaper in Erode District.The first respondent failed to
issue not “tracable certificate” to the petitioner.
17. The fifth respondent failed to conduct enquiry in accordance with
law. Even though the fifth respondent knows that it is the fittest
case to find out the person who signed the forgery signature of Late
Perumal Mudhaliar.The fifth respondent instead of registering the
case and sending the signatures and finger prints for forensic and
finger print experts,he permitted the accused to escape from the
clutches of law.The petitioner made an attempt to verify the
signature through the Government Forensic Laboratory,Mylapore
Chennai.The deputy director clearly stated in her letter
Dated:29.04.2014 and the case will be taken only with cr.number
registered by the police or through the civil court.
18. In this situation the petitioner has taken necessary steps to get the
opinion from the Private Laboratory.They will submit the report by
19.05.2014.It is the fittest case to verify through the government
laboratory,Mylapore,Chennai and Fingerprint experts,Raja
Annamalaipuram,Chennai.It is also necessary to verify the
signature of the fifth accused by signing as Late Perumal
Mudhaliar is necessary.
7. It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the
Respondents to register the compliant of the petitioner to find out the
person who signed my grand father’s forgery signature as he was not
able to sign from 17.05.1999 and made thumb impression in Partition
deed and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai this the 6th
day of April 2015.
PARTY-IN-PERSON
8. MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION
(Under Sec. 482)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
Crl. O.P. No. OF 2014
P.Chandira,
W/o R.Thangavel,
E-77,Anna Road,Block-27,
Neyveli-3,Cuddalore District. ------Petitioner/Complainant.
Vs
1.The Inspector of Police,
Kavindapadi,Erode District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime,Erode District.
3. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Bhavani, Erode District.
4. Inspector of Police,
Bhavani, Erode District.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Bhavani, Erode District.
6. The Superintendent of Police,
Erode District.
7.The Director General of Police,
Chennai. ---Respondent/ Respondent.
TYPED SET OF PAPERS
S.N
o
Date Description of Documents P.No
1 25.11.13 The compliant of the petitioner 1
2 25.11.13 CSRNO:477/13 issued by 3rd respondent 2
3 25.11.13 The statement of the approver 3
4 25.11.13 CMP.No:9869/13 by JM-II,Bhavani 4-5
5 17.02.14 Director,V&AC,Lr to 7th
respondent 6
6 24.02.15 Seventh respondent’s Letter to petitioner 7
7 20.05.14 The petitioner letter to sixth respondent 8
8 The 7th
respondent reply to the petitioner 9
