MCOP claims: Action ordered against 3

Justice P N Prakash while extending the CB-CID probe in a case wherein three MCOPs came to be preferred in the name of Kapilraj and the other legal heirs of the deceased Mohan by three different advocates. 

He said, “In the opinion of this Court, all these thespians in this sordid episode can be pulled up for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, since, by filing false claims with fabricated documents, they have polluted the stream of justice. However, this court does not want to take such an extreme step for the present.” The episode has its roots on February 09, 2017, when a motor accident took place, in which, Mohan breathed his last. Based on his son Kapilraj’s complaint Somangalam Police registered a case as a ‘hit and run’. But, three MCOPs came to be preferred in the name of Kapilraj and the other legal heirs of the deceased Mohan by three different advocates, showing that the offending vehicle was a lorry bearing No.TN 19 AA 2682 insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd (CGIS).

But when CGIS received notices on the three MCOPs in respect of the same accident, they held a probe which revealed that in the original complaint and FIR, the vehicle was shown as “unidentified”, but, in the FIRs filed along with the MCOPs, the number and description of the offending vehicle was shown as above. Based on this, the high court directed the CBCID (Metro) to conduct a preliminary enquiry and file a report.

On June 06, 2018, the CB-CID (Metro) submitted a preliminary report, which revealed that Kapilrajwas able to identify his signature in one of the three cases filed. Along with this, the role of an advocate clerk Stephen who had provided the fake FIR came to light. On court directions all of them filed an affidavit explaining their cause.

However, Justice Prakash on finding prima facies materials against all of them, said “The affidavits filed by Kapilraj, Stephen, Murugan, Raveendran, Arunachalam and Jeyakumar are documents that are relevant ‘as admissions’ under Section 21 of the Evidence Act and therefore, they can be used as a substantive piece of evidence in any prosecution launched against them. Hence, the Registrar (Judicial) shall furnish certified copies of the affidavits of the said persons to the Superintendent of Police, CB-CID.” However, the judge also placed before the Chief Justice the need to issue a circular insisting on the personal appearance of the claimants.