SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

கொடநாடு தடை கோரிய மனு. C.Iyyapparaj —-MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION (U/S 482 OF CR.PC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS   Crl.O.P.No                of 2021   In SC.No.2 of 2018 (On the file of the District Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, The Nilgiris)   Ravi @ Anubav Ravi M/A 52 Years, S/o N.Natesan,

by ·

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION

(U/S 482 OF CR.PC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

 

Crl.O.P.No                of 2021

 

In

SC.No.2 of 2018

(On the file of the District Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, The Nilgiris)

 

Ravi @ Anubav Ravi M/A 52 Years,

S/o N.Natesan,

D.No.22, AKS Nagar, 3rd Street,

Gandhi Park, Coimbatore

…Petitioner

-Vs-

The Inspector of Police,

Sholurmattam Police Stattion

Kothagiri Circle,The Nilgiris District,

(Crime.No.158/2017)

…Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF RAVI @ ANUBAV RAVI

I, Ravi @ Anubav Ravi, son of N.Naesan Hindu, aged about  52 years, residing at D.No.22, AKS Nagar, 3rd Street, Gandhi Park, Coimbatore, now temporarily come down to Chennai and do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-

 

  1. I am the Petitioner herein and one of the witnesses in the case in SC No. 2 of 2018 as such I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

  1. I state that the respondent police had investigated the murder case which took place at Kodanadu Estate Bungalow at Nilgiris District during the month of April 2017. In the said incident one of the Watchmen of the Kodanadu Estate by name Om Bahadur was murdered by a group of persons in order to commit robbery in the Estate Bungalow. During the course of the said incident, another watchman by name one Krishna Dhaba was also attacked and thereby he sustained injuries.
  2. I state that during the course of investigation of the above case, I was examined by the Investigating officer and my statement was recorded. I state that I came to know that, after completion of the Investigation, the respondent police had filed charge sheet against 10 accused for the offences U/s. 147, 148, 149, 324, 342, 447, 449, 458, 395 R/w 397, 396 IPC and 302 IPC R/w 120 (B) IPC later I was examined as PW35 in the course of trial.

 

  1. I submit that the one of the accused Kanagaraj was known to me since he was working as a driver for one of my friends namely Ashok Kumar at Chennai. I further submit that the said Kanagaraj developed acquaintances with me whenever I visited my friend Ashok Kumar at Chennai. While this is so on 28.4.2017 at 8p.m, while I was watching a movie at Brookfield Cinema Theatre at Coimbatore the above said Kanagaraj called me on my mobile phone and told that he and his friends had committed murder at Kodanadu Estate bungalow in the course of committing robbery.

 

  1. I submit that I was shocked to hear that information and I suggested him to go and surrender before the concerned police but Kanagaraj preferred to surrender before the Sankagiri DSP. I further submit that the above said Kanagaraj had once introduced one of the accused Sayan to me and after this incident I severed contact with him. I state that I am a businessman, doing Jewellery business in the name of Anubav Jewellers and also doing real estate business in and around Coimbatore city. I state that I am also the Joint Secretary of AIADMK Amma Peravai Kovai City.

 

  1. I submit that due to political motive I had been threatened from various sources stating the further investigation in the Kodanadu case is going to take place and I must give witness statement according to the requirement. I state that subsequently I came to know that on 13.8.2021 the newly appointed Special Public Prosecutors had filed a memo before the trial court informing that they are investigating the case further and this information was telecasted in all leading television channels and newspapers. I further state that again on 17.08.2021 a news item was published in the morning news papers that as if the main accused in this case by name K.V.Sayan (A1) is going to give statement before the Kothagiri police and the police is going to examine him.

 

  1. I state that I came to understand that in the above murder case trial, the prosecution had nearly examined 41 witnesses and after questioning the accused under 313 Cr.P.C the learned Trial Judge had posted the case for defence witness in the end of April 2021. I submit that on enquiry I came to know that the defence side did not produce the witnesses for examination inspite of the fact that this Hon’ble court had already given directions on three occasions to complete the trial of the case within the specified time limit.

 

  1. I state that the orders are as follows:-         (1) Crl.O.P.No.11805 of 2020 dated 4.8.2020 by the Hon’ble Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, (2) Crl.O.P.Nos.8488 and 8495 of 2020 dated 28.08.2020 by the Hon’ble Justice R.SUBRAMANIAN and in (3) Crl.R.C.Nos.1298 and 1301 of 2019 dated 19.01.2021 by the Hon’ble Justice P.VELMURUGAN within a period of three months from the date of the order. In spite of all these orders the present prosecution and the defence are not obeying the order of this Hon’ble court.

 

  1. I further submit that I was informed that the prosecution is conducting the further investigation without the order of the court which is the reason for not producing the witness by the defence. I submit that so far from April 2021 to till today not even one defence witness was examined before the trial court and the adjournment are being sought on various grounds from time to time.

 

  1. I further submit that I came to understand that in fact already a petition was filed by a social activist K.R.Ramasamy @ Traffic Ramasamy before the Hon’ble Supreme court of India seeking to transfer the investigation from the state police to CBI in Writ Petition (Criminal ) No. 15/2019 and the same was dismissed on 25.01.2019 stating that the case is not fit for admission.

 

  1. I state that the above said filing of the writ petition by the social activist and its dismissal were widely published in Television and News Media’s and the prosecution was well aware of the same. I state that inspite of the above said position, the present stand taken by the prosecution that they are doing further Investigation is having some ulterior motive and also to delay the completion of the trial of the case. I state that after 3 years of the incident, at the stage of examining defence witness in the trial, the stand taken by the prosecution to examine one of the main accused and record his statement is having no logical reasoning.

 

  1. I further submit that due to the representation made by the prosecution before the trial court, and the news item published in the news papers, myself and few other witnesses are afraid due to the prolonging trial proceedings of the case. I state that if it continues like this, the threat and pressure on us will continue and we are already living in fear due to being a witness in this sensational case.
  2. I was advised to state that In the case of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors (MANU/SC/0104/2017) the Hon’ble Supreme court of India held as follows:

 

…in a way, in view of the three options open to the Magistrate, after a report is submitted by the police on completion of the investigation, as has been amongst authoritatively enumerated in Bhagwant Singh (supra), the Magistrate, in both the contingencies, namely; when he takes cognizance of the offence or discharges the accused, would be committed to a course, whereafter though the investigating agency may for good reasons inform him and seek his permission to conduct further investigation…”

 

  1. Likewise, in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs The State Of Gujarat (Crl.Appeal No.s 478-479 of 2017) the Hon’ble Supreme court of India held as follows:

There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate’s powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri (supra), Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra), and Hardeep Singh (supra); Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate’s nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases mid-way through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences.

 

  1. I state that under the said circumstances unless this Hon’ble court pleases to give suitable directions to the defence and the prosecution to co-operate with the trial court for early completion of the trial of the above murder case within the stipulated time I will be put into irreparable loss and mental agony. It is not out of place to submit here that the investigation is being presently carried on without the leave of the court and the same has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Courts that such attitude of the investigation at the fag end of the trial are due to change of office of the prosecutor or Government is not to be encouraged.

Therefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased

 

  1. to stay the further investigation of the case in SC No. 2 of 2018 pending on the file of the Learned District Judge Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, The Nilgiris by the respondent police pending disposal of the direction petition

 

  1. to issue suitable directions to the trial court to complete the trial of the case in SC No. 2 of 2018 pending on the file of the Learned District Judge Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, The Nilgiris on day to day basis and thus render justice.

 

Solemnly affirmed and sincerely   |                 Before me

Signed his name in my presence   |

On this the   day of  August 2021 |        Advocate: Chennai

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

 

Crl.O.P.No                of 2021

 

Ravi @ Anubav Ravi

S/o N.Natesan,

…Petitioner

-Vs-

The Inspector of Police,

Sholurmattam Police Stattion

Kothagiri Circle,The Nilgiris District,

(Crime.No.158/2017)

…Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVIT OF RAVI @ ANUBAV RAVI

 

 

 

 

 

 

M/s. C.Iyyapparaj (1879/05)

C.Vidhusan (4403/18)

 

Counsel for the petitioner

Email: vidhu9126@gmail.com

 

You may also like...