Vellore Superintendent of Police (SP) Praveshkumar has given a clean chit to Minister for Commercial Taxes K.C. Veeramani and businessman J. Sekar Reddy on a complaint lodged by an individual accusing them of having instigated their men to indulge in violence in connection with a 7.1 acre property supposedly worth ₹300 crore.
In a status report filed before the Madras High Court, the SP justified his decision of not ordering registration of a First Information Report despite a complaint from J. Jayaprakash, 45, of Gandhi Nagar in Vellore that 20 “henchmen” damaged furniture, cameras, phones, cars and other movable properties.
Though Jayaprakash had claimed that the contents of his complaint had clearly made out cognisable offences warranting registration of a FIR, the SP told Justice M. Nirmal Kumar that the entire property dispute was basically civil in nature and the complaint regarding violent incidents on December 21, 2018 was “false and frivolous.”
The complainant had accused the SP of supporting the Minister. Denying all the allegations, Mr. Praveshkumar said the police actually registered a case against the present complainant on charges of trespass and damaging properties on December 21 on the basis of a complaint lodged by Brahmanandam Danda, a rival claimant to the 7.1 acres.
‘False complaint’
“The petitioner, in order to escape from the said criminal case, has intentionally furnished a complaint with false and frivolous allegations against the honourable Minister, police officials and title and possession holders (of the land) with the intention to create fear in the minds of the above said persons,” the SP’s status report read.
Further, accusing the complainant of being in the habit of lodging false complaints, the SP said the complaint regarding alleged violence by the “henchmen” on December 21 had been lodged “with an ulterior motive to create confusion and demand illegitimate action from the Police department.”
The SP also stated that Jayaprakash would have lodged a complaint immediately after the incident if it was true and it would not have taken three months to approach the police.
On the other hand, the complainant claimed the police were acting hand in glove with the accused. Hence, he had first obtained a court order restraining the police from harassing him.
He approached the court against the decision of the police to not register an FIR on the basis of a complaint lodged by him on March 14.
Stating that he had lost confidence in the local police, the petitioner urged the court to implead the Central Bureau of Investigation as well as Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) as respondents to his case.
