Explain why no name was mentioned in FIR: Madras HC to Cop

Chennai: Shocked over the quashing of an FIR registered in connection with the alleged malpractices including large scale distribution of money during the cancelled elections to the RK Nagar Constituency, the Madras high court has directed the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Investigation Officer,
Abiramapuram police station to offer their explanation and file their counter affidavits with supporting documents as to why till the date of registration of the case and till the date of quashing of the FIR, name of the accused have not been stated.

A division bench comprising Justices M.Sathyanarayanan and P.Rajamanickam who gave the directive, also directed the then Joint Commissioner of Police (East) and the present Joint Commissioner of Police (East) to file affidavit as to why its earlier order to monitor the investigation of the case has not been
complied with.

Passing interim orders on the petitions filed by DMK candidate N.Maruthu Ganesh and M.P.Vairakkannan, the bench said though senior counsel P.Wilson appearing for Maruthu Ganesh requested to reopen the case and transfer the case to the CBI, this court is not inclined to do so for the present.

The bench also directed the state government to inform as to whether any SLP has been filed against the order of the single judge dated March 13, 2018, quashing the FIR and the existence and identity of P.M.Narasimman, who filed the criminal original petition to quash the FIR.

 Posting the matter to December 17, the bench directed the Registry to keep the Case Diary (CD) (relating to investigation into the complaint given by the Returning officer in connection with alleged malpractices including distribution of money to voters) in a sealed cover and produce before the court on the next date of hearing.

Earlier, Senior counsel Wilson submitted that after spending about ' 10 crore the election was cancelled. Though the report of the returning officer mentioned three names including a minister, no names were mentioned in the FIR. The police was colluding with the accused, he added.

 Additional government pleader Sabitha Rani submitted that the FIR was quashed by a single judge.

Shocked over the quashing of the FIR, the bench summoned Public Prosecutor A.Natarajan.

Public prosecutor A.Natarajan appeared before the bench and submitted that Additional public prosecutor Iyyapparaj had objected to the quash petition and urged the court not to quash the FIR.

 After perusing the CD and the original letter of the Returning Officer, which was pointed out by Niranjan Rajagopalan, counsel for Election Commission of India, the bench said in the criminal original petition, the defacto complainant was not even made as a party.

Senior counsel Wilson said they suppressed the pendency of these petitions. The police tampered the complaint of the returning officer. The original complaint contains three names including Minister Vijay Bhaskar. The petitioner lost hope with the state police, and hence, the case should be transferred to the CBI, he added.

 In his petition, Maruthu Ganesh sought a direction to the Union government to frame appropriate guidelines to ensure the accountability of the ECI for its actions and inactions, besides a compensation of Rs 5 lakh which he spent during the cancelled election from the ECI.

In his petition Vairakkannan  sought a direction to the authorities to file FIR with regard to the alleged electoral malpractices.

The bench had on July 14, 2017, directed the Joint Commissioner of Police (East) to monitor the investigation on the FIR filed.investigation on the FIR filed.