Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


R. Venkatasaravanan @ v. The Inspector of Police - W.P.No.15262 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 570 (10 August 2005)


DATED: 10/08/2005



W.P.No.15262 of 2005

and W.P.Nos, 15263, 15264, 25207, 25208, 25209 of 2005 and

W.P.M.P.Nos.16603, 20465, 27609, 27610, 27611 of 2005 R. Venkatasaravanan @

S.A.R.Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi

48 Bazulla Road

T. Nagar

Chennai 600 017. ... Petitioner in all the writ petitions. -Vs-

The Inspector of Police

C C B, Egmore

Chennai 600 008. ... 1st Respondent in all petitions Director of Central Bureau

of Investigation

Sastri Bhavan ... 2nd respondent in WP Nos.15262 Chennai 600 006. to 15264 of 2005 Assistant Director of Central

Bureau of Investigation,

Sastri Bhavan, ... 2nd respondent in WP Nos.25207 Chennai 600 006. to 25209 of 2005 Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of writs of mandamus as stated therein. For petitioner ... Mr.E.Damodaran

For Respondents ... Mr.K.Doraisamy,

Public Prosecutor


The petitioner has filed the above writ petitions, seeking writs of mandamus, directing the first respondent to hand over the investigation of the case in Crime Nos.592, 582, 598, 601, 603 and 602 of 2004, respectively, pending on the file of the first respondent to the file of the second respondent for proper investigation.

2. In all the affidavits, which are similar, the petitioner has stated as under.

(a) The petitioner has studied M.A.Sanskrit, M.A.Philosophy and religion and well-versed in Vedas. He started giving lectures in all the subjects and attracted by this, several people came to him for solace. With the voluntary contributions made by his devotees, the petitioner established Ashrams, first at Coimbatore and later on, at Chennai. He had been feeding the poor and carrying out improvements in important Vaishnava Shrines. He never collected anything from public, by force or by unlawful means. He founded Sri Ramanuja Mission Trust and Sri Bhasyakara Trust to propagate the principles of Sri Ramanujar and for carrying out kainkaryam at various Vaishnava Divya Kshethrams.

(b) One of the devotee by name B.Suresh of Alwarpet, contributed liberally for the purchase of properties. In course of time, differences of opinion surfaced within his family, which made him fall into the hands of evil forces, who were waiting for an opportunity to destroy the petitioner's name and fame. Suresh preferred a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint against the petitioner to the first respondent, alleging that the petitioner had abducted and kidnapped his wife and daughter and also cheated him to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs, jewels, besides sexually harassing his wife and daughter. By use of enormous influence and clout, the crime was registered. (c) The first respondent and his superiors started conducting trial through visual and print media, spreading false rumours to create a bad picture about the petitioner in the public mind and has been harassing all the devotees of the petitioner. The first respondent and his superiors, through newspapers, called upon the public to lodge complaints against the petitioner. Bad and disgruntled elements, sent out by the petitioner at some point of time, or other, who were waiting for an opportunity, lodged false complaints against the petitioner. Without even verifying the bona fide nature of those complaints, the first respondent registered more than five such First Information Reports against the petitioner. The incidents as referred to in those complaints never took place. Some of the petitioner's followers, gave representations to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, to find out the truth of the other complaints also. But, till date, no action has been taken on those representations. Apprehending that he may not get a fair and true investigation at the hands of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed these petitions, seeking transfer of the said cases from the file of the first respondent to the second respondent for proper investigation.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It is well settled law that the accused cannot have a say as to who should investigate the offence, he is charged with. In the decision reported in 1997 Cri.L.J.63 (C.B.I v. Rajesh Gandhi) the Supreme Court held thus,

"8. ... The decision to investigate or the decision on the agency which should investigate, does not attract principles of natural justice. The accused cannot have a say in who should investigate the offences he is charged with. ..."

5. In the instant case, petitioner is the accused in all the six crime numbers referred to above, and hence he has no right whatsoever to choose the investigating agency.

6. In this view of the matter, all the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Connected WPMPs are also dismissed. Index : Yes

Website : Yes



1. The Inspector of Police, C C B, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 2. The Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006.

3. The Assistant Director of Central Bureau of

Investigation, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.