Skip to content


A. Thambidurai Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Chennai Madurai High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Criminal Original Petition (MD) No. 9304 of 2016

Judge

Appellant

A. Thambidurai

Respondent

The Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai and Others

Excerpt:


.....crl.o.p.(md) no.1369 of 2016. this court, noting down that a preliminary enquiry in memorandum no.pe.30/2016/rdp/hq was ordered on 25.01.2016 and the report is awaited, closed the crl.o.p. now, through the very same counsel, the petitioner himself has directly filed the present crl.o.p. it is pertinent to note that the said preliminary enquiry covers the allegations in the present petition. the petitioner has no patience to wait for the outcome of the said enquiry. in fact, a show-cause notice also has been issued to the third respondent in connection with the said enquiry. it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has already filed two writ petitions and they are pending. in the facts and circumstances, the present case is not a fit case for issuing direction under section 482 cr.p.c. 12. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

Judgment:


(Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, dated 19.02.2016.)

1. Thambidurai, a Kovilpatti man, wants to axe his sister Ponnuthayee / 3rd respondent and also her husband Ponraj.

2. Because of their internal fight, now Thittankulam came to lime light. Petitioner alleges large scale swindling of panchayat funds by the third respondent / present President of Thittankulam Panchayat, her husband / Ex-President and certain Panchayat officials.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said couples in connivance with the Panchayat officials indulged in large scale irregularities and misappropriation of funds.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that already there was an unholistie alliance between the petitioner and one Senthilkumar. Earlier, they engineered Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1369 of 2016. That was over. Now, their new adventure is the present petition.

5. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that of course after the demise of the third respondent and her husband, the petitioner may become a legal heir. But, now itself he wants to become their legal heir. The couples have no issues. But, they are having a trouble making relative, who is none other than the petitioner, who has no patience to wait to succeed to their property as per law. But, now itself he wants to become a rich man. In order to pressurize them, earlier he filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1369 of 2016 through his friend Senthilkumar. When that petition was over, now he himself directly came to the scene. He is highly motivated. He is actuated by private motive.

6. The learned counsel for the third respondent also submitted that already, the petitioner filed two writ petitions against the third respondent and they are pending before this Court. A show-cause notice also has been issued to her.

7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and gone through the order in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1369 of 2016.

8. Section 482 Cr.P.C., has got lofty ideals High Courts have inherent power to do justice. Such power cannot be misused to do injustice. This power is to secure justice. But, not to secure injustice. It is an independent reservoir of power of the High Courts. It is based on the legal maxim fiat justitia, ruat coelum.

9. Section 482 Cr.P.C., has got three dimensions, namely, 1) to implement any orders passed under Cr.P.C. 2) to prevent abuse of process of any Court and 3) to secure justice. In short, it is to do justice and undo injustice.

10. Section 482 Cr.P.C., also has been invoked to direct the Police to register a case, when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. Such a power of Court cannot be misused, such a power of Court cannot be used to settle scores and such a power of Court cannot be used to ventilate private vendetta.

11. Now, in this case, fight is going on between the petitioner and the third respondent. They are close relatives. To the luck or ill-luck of the petitioner, the third respondent has become the President of Thittankulam Panchayat. Earlier, for the very same allegations, one Senthilkumar filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1369 of 2016. This Court, noting down that a preliminary enquiry in Memorandum No.PE.30/2016/RDP/HQ was ordered on 25.01.2016 and the report is awaited, closed the Crl.O.P. Now, through the very same counsel, the petitioner himself has directly filed the present Crl.O.P. It is pertinent to note that the said preliminary enquiry covers the allegations in the present petition. The petitioner has no patience to wait for the outcome of the said enquiry. In fact, a show-cause notice also has been issued to the third respondent in connection with the said enquiry. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has already filed two writ petitions and they are pending. In the facts and circumstances, the present case is not a fit case for issuing direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

12. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //