Madras High Court hits out at state police for shoddy probe

Chennai: The Madras high court has slammed the state police for not conducting the investigation properly into the complaint filed by a constitutional authority (returning officer) alleging large scale distribution of money during the rescinded election to the RK Nagar Assembly constituency and not even naming any persons in the FIR, despite the complaint of the returning officer named three persons including state health minister Vijay Bhaskar.

A division bench comprising Justices M.Sathyanarayanan and P.Rajamanickam also ordered notice to the Union and state governments, Election Commission of India and CBI and others, on a petition, which sought a CBI probe into the complaint given by the Returning Officer of RK Nagar Assembly constituency, alleging malpractices including large scale distribution of money during the cancelled election to the RK Nagar Assembly Constituency.

The bench posted to January 10, further hearing of the additional affidavit filed by DMK candidate N.Maruthu Ganesh, which sought to permit him to amend the prayer.

Originally, 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.

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

Earlier, after it was brought to the notice of the court that the FIR registered in connection with the alleged malpractices during the cancelled elections was quashed by a single judge of the Madras high court, the bench had on December 3 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.

The bench had 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.

When the case came up for hearing on Monday, senior counsel P.Wilson appearing for the petitioner submitted since there was collusion between the investigation officer and the accused, besides prosecution, in order to bring out the truth, the CBI may be directed to probe the matter. The Returning Officer may give a second complaint and CBI may conduct probe into it since higher dignitaries were involved in the matter. The petitioner may be permitted to amend the prayer to the effect that seeking direction to the CBI to probe the matter, Wilson added.

Public prosecutor A.Natarajan filed a status report. The then Joint Commissioner and the present Joint Commissioner were present in the court as per the court's directive.

After perusing the status report and the explanation offered by the then JC, the bench said in the considered opinion of the court, the explanation offered by S.Manoharan, the then JC was hardly sufficient.

The returning officer lodged a complaint along with annexures. The Insepctor of Police, Abirmapuram police station after getting permission from the Magistrate registered an FIR. This court had earlier asked the JC to monitor the investigation. According to the explanation of the then JC, so far 882 witnesses have been examined and their statements were recorded. The RO in his complaint has named three persons including state health minister Vijay Bhasker. But, the JC has not named any one till date, the bench pointed out.

The bench said in the criminal original petition, the defacto complainant was not cited as a Respondent. Normally, if the defacto complainant was not included as a party Respondent, the petition will not be numbered. But, in this case, it was numbered.  When that petition came up for hearing the additional public prosecutor has not objected to the petition for non inclusion of the defacto complainant.

Moreover, the APP did not inform the court that none of the accused was yet to be identified. If that was brought to the notice of the court, FIR could not have been quashed because the investigation was at the preliminary stage.  It was to be pointed out that the prayer in that petition was not restricted to the petitioner. It was a general prayer to quash the FIR, the bench added.

The bench said this court had on December 3 asked whether any SLP was filed against the quashing of the FIR. It was submitted by the Public Prosecutor, on instructions, that the Chief Secretary and other top ranking officers have to be consulted.

This was placed on record. When asked what was the stand of the ECI, Niranjan Rajagopal, appearing for ECI submitted he has to get instructions, the bench pointed out.