Madras High Court slams police for not filing status report in RK Nagar by-election cash-for-votes case

A division bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice P Rajamanickam before whom a batch of petitions seeking registration of an FIR in the case pending since April last year came up, was astonished to hear that the FIR filed by the Abhiramapuram police station has been quashed.

On summoning Public Prosecutor A Natarajan, the bench raised a volley of questions on how the FIR was quashed even as several pleas were pending in this regard. Further, opining that the State has not presented its defence properly before the single judge, the bench said, “Though P Wilson, senior counsel for the petitioner has stressed for re-opening and the transfer of the investigation to CBI, this court is not inclined to do so for the present.” “This court is of the opinion that an opportunity has to be provided for the Joint

Commissioner of Police, East of Greater Chennai as well as the investigation officer of Abhiramapuram Police Station to offer their explanation to file the counter affidavits with supporting documents as to why from the date of registration of the case till the date of quashing of FIR, the name of the accused have not been stated in the FIR.”

Also, the bench on wondering as to what the Income Tax Department, on whose behest, the Election Commission had lodged the complaint, had done so far, sought that it should submit a report.

The bench further directed the government to file an affidavit providing details on whether any Special Leave Petition is filed against the order of the single judge quashing the FIR.

The bench also directed the government to file an affidavit about the existence and the identity of PM Narasimhan, who filed the criminal original petition seeking to quash the FIR.

The single judge, MS Ramesh, while quashing the FIR had held, “In the absence of offence under Section 171(B) of the IPC having been made out and failure on the part of the Abhiramapuram police station to obtain prior orders from the jurisdictional magistrate to investigate a cognizable office, it can only be concluded that the entire exercise of registration of the complaint is illegal, improper and without jurisdiction.”