Police submits CDR & tower location of cinematographer cum actor Ilavarasu, before MHC

CHENNAI: The State police submitted the call detail record (CDR) and tower location of cinematographer cum film actor Ilavarasu, contrary to his submissions before the Madras High Court in a contempt case.

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira observed that if the averments of the cinematographer are found to be false, he will be charged with perjury, after the police placed the CDR and tower location of the Ilavarasu stating that he was in T-Nagar on December 12, 2023.

Advocate Conscious Ilango appeared for Ilavarasu, said that the scheduled shooting on that day was canceled and his client was in his office.

However, the judge observed at petitioner's counsel that don't make false and wild allegations against the police and directed to advise his client to tender an apology before the court.

Subsequently, the counsel sought time to get instructions from his client. After the submission, the judge posted the matter to January 30 (Tuesday) for further hearing.

Petitioner Ilavarasu, being the general secretary of the Southern India Cinematographer's Association lodged a complaint against previous office bearers of the Association on the allegation of misappropriation of the association's fund. Subsequently, he filed a petition in MHC seeking to direct the police to complete the investigation. In March 2023 the MHC directed the T Nagar police to file the investigation report within four months.

However, Ilavarasu filed a contempt petition in MHC against the police stating that the final report was not filed within the stipulated time.

The police submitted that the investigation was completed and the final report was also filed on December 12, 2023.

Countering this the counsel for Ilavarasu submitted that the investigation was not done in a proper manner and without conducting any inquiry, to wriggle out the contempt action, the police filed the final report.

The counsel for the police submitted that on December 12, 2023, the petitioner appeared before the respondent his statement was recorded on the same day and thereafter, the final report was filed.

The petitioner denied his appearance before the respondent and also submitted that only to escape from the clutches of law, the Police have produced fabricated CCTV footage.

Petitioner also said that on the said date he was in a shooting at Mahabalipuram and was not at all available at Chennai.

To clear the ambiguity the court directed the police to collect the CDR details along with the tower locations of the petitioner on the particular day and submit before the court.