Deprecating the attitude of an assistant commissioner of police in the city as well as the city police commissioner, “which is a black mark on the entire government as well as Chennai Police,” the Madras High Court has directed the police chief, S. George, to appear on Friday to appraise the court of the status of a case.
Passing orders on a petition, Justice A. Arumughaswamy said: “This court observes with heavy heart that the Commissioner of Police is a police officer and he is not an emperor in Fort St. George.”
A petitioner, D. Sridhar of Ekkaduthangal, said that he had preferred a complaint with the commissioner on April 11, 2005 that S. Rajamani, claiming to be managing director of a company, offered to sell a piece of land in Ekkaduthangal village.
He had entered into two agreements of sale in January 2002 and made payments on various dates to the company. Now, Mr. Rajamani and other directors were refusing to sell the property stating that the company head was not authorised to do so.
Hence, it was a case of cheating and breach of trust. A month later, a case was registered.
Mr. Justice Arumughaswamy said even though Mr. Sridhar had produced the sale agreement and document for payment of consideration, the police had closed the case as a mistake of fact and civil in nature.
Thereafter, the complainant filed a protest petition in the magistrate court and obtained directions. The assistant commissioner of police concerned informed his advocate that a negative final report is to be filed before the court.
Hence, the present petition seeking a transfer of the investigation from the city central crime branch to any other investigating agency.
The judge said that considering the facts and circumstances, it was clear that the sale deed had not been executed and repeatedly, the officer concerned had filed negative final reports twice in spite of the High Court’s directions.
He said the police commissioner is expected to receive the complaint and take action after investigation. He should act without partiality.
He could not refuse an audience to a member of the public like the complainant. “He should hear the grievance of the public and then only he can take any decision after due investigation,” the judge said.
