The following full text of 'Madras High Court
Judgment' was sent to us by Mr. Devasahayam of Chennai:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21/08/2008
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI
Crl.O.P. Nos.15451 and 15981 of 2008
Common Order
Sensing
the derailment of procedure established by law at the bottom level of the
subordinate judiciary, in that, some Judicial Magistrates, in collusion with
complainant Bankers/Financial Institutions, are in the habit of entertaining
complaints relating to matters purely of civil nature and thereby, in abuse of
judicial discretion and power, superabundantly passing orders under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation of such matters by the police for the undue
benefit of the financial institutions, and in some instances they are
entertaining similar complaints by themselves under Section 200 Cr.P.C.,
vigilance enquiries were conducted and reports received and the complaints
entertained by them came to be quashed by orders of this Court passed in a
number of petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In spite of such reaction by this court and repeated directions to the Judicial
Magistrates not to refer the complaints/matters of civil nature for police
investigation, recently, while dealing with like matters, it has come to light
that such illegal trend is still widely in vogue. Since it was deeply felt that
the issue relates to the propriety of the subordinate judiciary, by order dated
11.07.2008, the Registrar (Vigilance Cell), High Court, was directed to collect
the details with reference to pendency of such cases before the Judicial
Magistrate Courts in the State. Shouldered with the arduous task entrusted by
this Court, the Registrar continued the job, however, he could not get the
requisite particulars within the time stipulated in view of the reason that some
of the Magistrates were reluctant to furnish the full-fledged details.
Ultimately, subsequent to the strict direction of this Court, statistics and
particulars from the courts of Metropolitan/Judicial Magistrates throughout the
State could be procured. This Court places on record its deep appreciation for
the erstwhile Registrar, Vigilance, and the present Registrar, Vigilance, High
Court, Madras, and the Staff of the Vigilance Cell in accomplishing the task
entrusted to them by putting in hard labour and almost working round the clock.
2. Annexure-A, B and C
available in the vigilance report gives the particulars about the pending cases
with regard to credit card transactions, personal loans, Hire Purchase Loans,
cheque bouncing cases with IPC. offences etc., and the details of the
Magistrates who have taken on file huge number of cases is furnished below:-
" ANNEXURE-A
Chennai
III Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
George Town, Chennai : 10293
X Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Egmore, Chennai : 10738
XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court
, Saidapet, Chennai : 3159
XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Saidapet, Chennai : 171
------------
Total 24361
------------
ANNEXURE-B
Coimbatore
Judicial
Magistrate -III, Coimbatore : 243
ANNEXURE-C
Ramanathapuram
Judicial
Magistrate Court, Paramakudi 156
(Grand Total : 24760) "
The particulars of the Banks/Financial
Institutions at whose instance such cases have been taken on file by the
Metropolitan Magistrates at Chennai are available in the Vigilance Report and
the same is quoted here-under,
Pending Calendar Cases for the offences under Sections 406
and 420 of I.P.C
III Metropolitan Magistrate,
George Town, Chennai.
S. No.
Complainant/Bank 2005 2006 2007
Total Calendar Cases pending
1 ICICI BANK
37 1190 1489 2716
2. HDFC BANK
– 91 668 759
3 CITY BANK
– 7 240 247
4 KOTAK MAHENDRA –
133 111 244
5 CENTURIAN BANK
– 6 266 272
6 OTHERS
1080 3629 1346 6055
Total 1117 5056 4120
10293
X METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI
1. A.B.N. AMRO
BANK 8
2 ANUPAM FINANCE
LTD. 571
3 CENTURIAN
BANK 1813
4 CHOLAMANDALAM DBS FINANCE
LTD. 297
5 CITI
BANK
172
6 CITI FINANCE
LTD 9
7 G E MONEY INVESTMENT
LTD 141
8 HDFC
BANK
4685
9 HSBC
BANK
1
10 ICICI
BANK
532
11 ING VYSYA
BANK
146
12 KOTAK MAHINDRA
BANK 223
13 RELIANCE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS
LTD. 220
14 SBI
CARDS
39
15 TML FINANCE
LTD. 211
16 PRIVATE
PARTIES
1670
TOTAL
10738
XVII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SAIDAPET,
CHENNAI
1 ANUPAM FINANCE
LTD. 132
2 TATA MOTORS
LTD. 549
3 CENTURIAN BANK OF PUNJAB
LTD. 848
4 IDBI
24
5 HDFC
BANK
660
6 KOTAK MAHINDRA
BANK 794
7 CITI BANK
7
8 PRIVATE
PARTIES
145
TOTAL
3159
XVIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
SAIDAPET, CHENNAI
1 HDFC
104
2 ICICI
55
3 DEVELOPMENT CR.
BANK 3
4 CHOLAMANDALAM FINANCE
LTD 9
TOTAL 171
3. As could
be seen from the report, the huge number of the cases entertained by,
a) III Metropolitan Magistrate, George
Town, Chennai
b) X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai;
c) XVII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai;
d) XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai;
e) Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore;
and
f) Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi,
Ramnad,
is quite alarming. To
the highest extent, the Magistrate who acted as X Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, and as XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, has taken on
file totally 10676 (10505 + 171) cases. Most of the pending cases, in
particular are the contribution of three Metropolitan Magistrates in the City of
Chennai. Almost the borrowers of entire Tamil Nadu have been prosecuted by
these Magistrates without any botheration about their territorial jurisdiction.
On a perusal of such complaints, I find that, except mentioning of the words
'deceive', 'cheat', 'misappropriation' and 'criminal breach of trust', the prime
element viz., fraudulent/dishonest intention of the accused at the time of
entering into the agreement for grant of loan with the Bank/Financial
Institution, is not present at all. In such matters, where the
Bankers/complainants come with a plea that the other party/borrower has
committed breach of agreement ie., failed to pay the balance amount, and in
doing so, merely uses the words like `cheating', `fraud', `dishonesty', etc., in
the absence of emphatic allegation/materials to suggest that there was actually
fraudulent intention ab initio on the part of the accused, the court would not
agree for charging the breaching party with fraud merely because the complainant
uses such expressions and attempts to proceed on that basis. Strikingly, from
the materials available with regard to the pending cases, it is seen that, even
according to the complainant Bankers/Financial Institutions, valid agreements
have been entered into and their grievance is, the accused/borrowers failed to
discharge the contractual obligations. Thus, their sole object behind
approaching the Magistrates is to procure an order so that they can extract
through police the principal amount and whatever rate of interest they charge.
Pausing
here, it is relevant to add that, in Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra and
others (2001 (7) Scale 351), while considering the issue relating to loan
transactions and levy of interest in such matters, due to conflict of opinion, a
three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred the matter to the
Constitution Bench on the following question:-
" What is
the meaning to be assigned to the phrases the principal sum adjudged and such
principal sum as occurring in Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act (66 of 1956) w.e.f.
1-1-1957], a question of frequent recurrence and having far-reaching
implications in suits for recovery of money, specially those filed by banking
institutions against their borrowers, has been referred by a three-Judge Bench
of this Court to the Constitution Bench."
In the course of the Judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court made some vital observations, which run thus:-
" 52. The
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 empowers the Reserve Bank, on it being satisfied
that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest or in the interest of
depositors or banking policy so to do, to determine the policy in relation to
advances to be followed by banking companies generally or by any banking company
in particular and when the policy has been so determined it has a binding
effect. In particular, the Reserve Bank of India may give directions as to the
rate of interest and other terms and conditions on which advances or other
financial accommodation may be made. Such directions are also binding on every
banking company. Section 35-A also empowers the Reserve Bank of India in the
public interest or in the interest of banking policy or in the interests of
depositors (and so on) to issue directions generally or in particular which
shall be binding. With effect from 15-2-1984 Section 21-A has been inserted in
the Act which takes away power of the court to reopen a transaction between a
banking company and its debtor on the ground that the rate of interest charged
is excessive. The provision has been given an overriding effect over the Usury
Loans Act, 1918 and any other provincial law in force relating to indebtedness.
56. During
the course of hearing it was brought to our notice that in view of several usury
laws and debt relief laws in force in several States private moneylending has
almost come to an end and needy borrowers by and large depend on banking
institutions for financial facilities. Several unhealthy practices having slowly
penetrated into prevalence were pointed out. Banking is an organised institution
and most of the banks press into service long-running documents wherein the
borrowers fill in the blanks, at times without caring to read what has been
provided therein, and bind themselves by the stipulations articulated by the
best of legal brains. Borrowers other than those belonging to the corporate
sector, find themselves having unwittingly fallen into a trap and rendered
themselves liable and obliged to pay interest the quantum whereof may at the end
prove to be ruinous. At times the interest charged and capitalised is manifold
than the amount actually advanced. Rule of damdupat does not apply. Penal
interest, service charges and other overheads are debited in the account of the
borrower and capitalised of which debits the borrower may not even be aware. If
the practice of charging interest on quarterly rests is upheld and given a
judicial recognition, unscrupulous banks may resort to charging interest even on
monthly rests and capitalising the same. Statements of accounts supplied by
banks to borrowers many a times do not contain particulars or details of debit
entries and when written in hand are worse than medical prescriptions putting to
test the eyes and wits of the borrowers. Instances of unscrupulous, unfair and
unhealthy dealings can be multiplied though they cannot be generalised. Suffice
it to observe that such issues shall have to be left open to be adjudicated upon
in appropriate cases as and when actually arising for decision and we cannot
venture into laying down law on such issues as do not arise for determination
before us. However, we propose to place on record a few incidental observations,
without which, we feel, our answer will not be complete and that we do as under:
(1) Though
interest can be capitalised on the analogy that the interest falling due on the
accrued date and remaining unpaid, partakes the character of amount advanced on
that date, yet penal interest, which is charged by way of penalty for
non-payment, cannot be capitalised. Further interest i.e. interest on interest,
whether simple, compound or penal, cannot be claimed on the amount of penal
interest. Penal interest cannot be capitalised. It will be opposed to public
policy.
(5) The
power conferred by Sections 21 and 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is
coupled with duty to act. The Reserve Bank of India is the prime banking
institution of the country entrusted with a supervisory role over banking and
conferred with the authority of issuing binding directions, having statutory
force, in the interest of the public in general and preventing banking affairs
from deterioration and prejudice as also to secure the proper management of any
banking company generally. The Reserve Bank of India is one of the watchdogs of
finance and economy of the nation. It is, and it ought to be, aware of all
relevant factors, including credit conditions as prevailing, which would invite
its policy decisions. RBI has been issuing directions/circulars from time to
time which, inter alia, deal with the rate of interest which can be charged and
the periods at the end of which rests can be struck down, interest calculated
thereon and charged and capitalised. It should continue to issue such
directives. Its circulars shall bind those who fall within the net of such
directives. For such transaction which are not squarely governed by such
circulars, the RBI directives may be treated as standards for the purpose of
deciding whether the interest charged is excessive, usurious or opposed to
public policy.
(7) Any
interest charged and/or capitalised in violation of RBI directives, as to rate
of interest, or as to periods at which rests can be arrived at, shall be
disallowed and/or excluded from capital sum and be treated only as interest and
dealt with accordingly.
57. In
view of the law having been settled with this judgment, it is expected
henceforth from the banks, bound by the directives of the Reserve Bank of India,
to make an averment in the plaint that interest/compound interest has been
charged at such rates, and capitalised at such periodical rests, as are
permitted by, and do not run counter to, the directives of the Reserve Bank of
India. A statement of account shall be filed in the court showing details and
giving particulars of debit entries, and if debit entry relates to interest then
setting out also the rate of, and the period for which, the interest has been
charged.
....."
(emphasis supplied)
4. In the
present matters, it is ex facie apparent that, in spite of having weighed the
nature of allegations in judicial scales and thereby knowing fully well that
legally they are not supposed to refer the civil disputes for police
investigation or take cognizance by themselves, the said Judicial Officers
concerned, with ulterior motives and to oblige the demand of the Bankers,
illegally imputed criminal flavour to civil disputes, which action is not only
inappropriate, and as such legally untenable, but elicits their unwanted
intention in aiding one party to intimidate the other party. The basic premise
is, once a matter is found to be purely of civil nature, the scope and extent
of issues covering the same cannot take on a criminal character, for, both the
civil and criminal disputes are mutually exclusive. Obviously, the reason for
these Bankers/Financial Institutions trespassing into the area of criminal law
remedy is that civil law remedies are time-consuming; further, by obtaining
orders for police investigation, they can exert pressure upon the borrowers
through police to a considerable extent by imbibing the fear of arrest or being
subjected to ignominy at the hands of police and ultimately, with ease, they
could collect the principal amount plus the exorbitant rate of interest. In the
complaints taken on file, such break-up figures of principal and interest are
not mentioned. Unfortunately, the Magistrates, who have been repeatedly advised
and guided by the Hon'ble Apex Court to exercise great caution in that regard,
have abruptly failed in adhering to such guidance, as a result of which, the
immersion of civil disputes with criminal charges is immensely growing with each
passing day as reflected in the statistics furnished before this Court. Day in
and day out, hundreds of such complaints have been entertained by some of the
Magistrates and cognizance is taken. Humanly, it is impossible if there is
proper application of mind. Obviously, such cognizance is taken by the
Magistrates on the mere request of the Bankers with an ulterior motive and in
collusion and conspiracy with them.
5. The
other adverse impact of this illegal practice is mounting up of unnecessary
cases and thereby the valuable time of the court is wasted and to the dismay of
the legitimate litigants, their cases could not be taken up at right time in the
usual course. Already, the judicial system in our country is over-crowded with
crores of civil and criminal matters at all levels. The Apex Court, in its
umpteen number of judgements, has repeatedly cautioned the subordinate judiciary
to stem the tide of the expanding use of criminal law in settlement of disputes
which are basically of civil nature.
In G. Sagar Suri & another v. State of UP & Others
(2000) 2 SCC 636, the Supreme Court held that it is the duty and obligation of
the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process
particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.
That being so, in view of mixing the civil disputes with
criminal offences, the aggrieved parties are increasingly invoking the inherent
powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. The illegal practice has made the Magistrate Courts breeding points of
pendency of unnecessary criminal cases reflecting its adverse effect at all
levels upto the Supreme Court.
6. Under
the scheme of the Constitution, by virtue of Article 227 commencing with the
caption "Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court", and
Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which runs as follows,
" 483. Duty of High Court
to exercise continuous superintendence over courts of Judicial Magistrates.
Every High Court shall so
exercise its superintendence over the courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate
to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by
such Magistrates. ",
the High Court is
vested with the power of superintendence and control over the subordinate
judiciary. It is the members of the subordinate judiciary who directly interact
with the parties in the course of proceedings of the case and therefore, there
should not be any malfunctioning of such vital unit either by deviating from the
procedure laid down or ignoring the law propounded by the Apex Court and the
High Court. Though the members of subordinate judiciary look up to the High
Court for the power to control to be exercised with parent-like care and
affection, the basis for such superintendence should be,
Pardon the error but not its
repetition .
When the Magistrates
concerned have taken on file 1000s of cases relating to disputes of civil nature
in flagrant and blatant violation of the established procedure, is it not high
time for this Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that the
system is running on the right track.
Apart from
the constitutional provisions, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has
inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice,
prevent abuse of the process of the court and to ensure fair and impartial
enquiry/trial. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. is exercised:
(a) to give effect to an
order under the Code;
(b) to prevent abuse of
the process of court, and
(c) to otherwise secure
the ends of justice.
A. In the decision reported in AIR
1960 SC 866 (R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab), the Hon'ble Apex Court deduced
some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised,
viz.,:
(i) where it manifestly
appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the
proceedings;
(ii) where the
allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the
allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the
evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
B. In Janata Dal v. H. S.
Chowdhary & Others (1992) 4 SCC 305, the Apex Court observed thus:
" 132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent
power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such
power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or
arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which
alone the courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482
of the Code are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great
caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in
exercise of this power is based on sound principles."
C. In the case
law reported in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736), the
Supreme Court referred to the earlier observation made in in G. Sagar Suri's
case (cited supra) and remarked thus:-
This Court has laid
certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has
to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice."
14. While
no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking
remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with
a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted
and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, .....
",
D. The observation made by
the Apex Court in Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala (2000) 8 SCC 590 is relevant to be
extracted here-under:-
" 18. It is well
settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High
Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. Where criminal proceedings are initiated based on
illicit material collected on search and arrest which are per se illegal and
vitiate not only a conviction and sentence based on such material but also the
trial itself, the proceedings cannot be allowed to go on as it cannot but amount
to abuse of the process of the court; in such a case not quashing the
proceedings would perpetuate abuse of the process of the court resulting in
great hardship and injustice to the accused. In our opinion, exercise of power
under section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in a case like the one on hand,
would indeed secure the ends of justice."
The position having
been abundantly made clear by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and when
there is an established procedure available, if the subordinate courts,
deviating from the same, adopt the ugly fashion of ignoring such law and
procedure and start acting contrary thereto, then, legal anarchy will prevail
and the democratic structure of the country, rule of law and concept of liberty
of citizens will be the first casualty. Hence, this Court cannot close its
eyes to the arbitrary and capricious exercise of powers, authority or
jurisdiction by the officers of the subordinate judiciary. When there is a large
scale illegality and the judicial officers concerned are heedless to the
repeated guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court which
ultimately resulted in derailment of the system, on an meticulous analysis, this
Court deems it absolutely necessary to suo motu invoke the inherent jurisdiction
vested with this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the supervisory
jurisdiction under Sec.483 of the Code and Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. In order to do substantial justice, this Court is of the view that all
such cases pending before various Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate
Courts in the State, as reflected in the statistics furnished by the Registrar
(Vigilance Cell) vide Annexure- A, B and C should be directed to be withdrawn
and transferred to the file of this Court to initiate proceedings to quash such
complaints, whereupon, the same may be decided in accordance with law after
hearing the parties. In cases where it is not fit to quash the proceedings, such
matters may be remitted back to the Magistrates concerned for enquiry/trial.
7. It must also be highlighted here that the Supreme
Court has directed that even when a civil suit is filed, the Banks must furnish
in their plaint that interest/compound interest is charged at such rates and
capitalised at periodical rests as permitted by directives of the Reserve Bank
of India. On a bare perusal of the complaints, I do not find any such averment
in the complaints preferred before the Magistrates concerned. Courts and police
authorities were taken for granted by the Banks and invariably such statements
are not annexed at the time of filing cases/complaints. It is unfortunate that
the learned Magistrates who do not have territorial jurisdiction to take on file
such cases beyond his/her jurisdiction have passed the orders mechanically.
Though the borrowers appeared before court, cases were not conducted in the
manner known to law only with a view to facilitate the financial institutions in
adopting pressure tactics for collection of dues.
It is also
made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the R.B.I. should properly exercise
its supervisory role over banking companies and if there is any violation of
law/directives/circulars is brought to its notice, it must swing into action by
taking appropriate action against the Banks/Financial Institutions concerned.
Though the R.B.I. is one of the watchdogs of Finance and economy of the nation,
it is painful to see that such large scale looting from the innocent general
public has not been taken serious note of in spite of the strong observations
made by the Supreme Court. Many multinational and other Banks like,
a) ICICI Bank
c) City Bank
d) Kotak
Mahendra
e) Centurian
Bank
f) ABN Amro
Bank
g) Anupam
Finance Limited
h)
Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited
i) GE Money
Investment Limited
j) HSBC
k) ING Vysya
Bank
l) IDBI
m) Reliance
Capital Investments Limited
n) SBI Cards
o) TML Finance
Limited
p) TATA Motors
Limited
q) Development
CR. Bank,
and other private
parties are indulging in such illegal activities and the watchdog/RBI remains to
be a silent spectator. It is pointed out that, on conclusion of the enquiry by
the High Court, suitable proceedings will be initiated against those
complainants/banks who launched or persisted with the false prosecutions being
fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and their remedies lie
only in civil law and thereby, they will be made accountable.
Though the
practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, goondas and thugs has
been discouraged by the Apex Court, the Financial Institutions continue the
strong arm tactics by adopting genius, clever and crooked method of stealthily
resorting to criminal law remedies with the help of some unscrupulous black-sheeps
in the subordinate judiciary and the Police Department. It is unfortunate that
the borrowers concerned are unable to withstand the pressure of money power in
collusion with such public servants and in the net result, justice is the
causality. In fact, those Bankers can be proceeded against since they are the
actual offenders/accused under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code. But,
I am at a loss to understand why the police are not booking cases against these
Bankers/Collection Agents/Brokers when they are zealously entertaining hundreds
of complaints every day at the instance of the Financial Institutions. It is
upto the Director General of Police to fish out such unwarranted complaints and
close the prosecution after receiving opinion from the Director General of
Prosecution/Additional Director General of Prosecution/Assistant Public
Prosecutors concerned. Needless to say that legitimate prosecution will be
allowed to continue. The rulings/observations of the Supreme Court is binding
on all the courts and authorities in the country.
If an innocent borrower is harassed, it is the obligation of the police to
protect them and if materials are available, the police must register case
against such bankers/agents and investigate into the matter in accordance with
law.
8. In the
light of the foregoing discussion, the following directions are issued:-
(i) The
Registry is directed to withdraw all the cases pending on the file of the
learned Magistrates vide Annexure A, B and C of the Vigilance Report and call
for all the records connected to those cases and transfer the same to the file
of the High Court, Madras;
(ii) Registry to place
the entire materials and particulars before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice so
that orders could be passed for conducting enquiry in those matters;
(iii)
Further proceedings of all those cases vide Annexure A, B and C pending on the
file of the Metropolitan/Judicial Magistrates concerned are hereby stayed till
the disposal of the proceedings by the Court;
(iv) All
records including vigilance reports may also be placed before the Hon'ble the
Chief Justice for taking appropriate departmental action against the Magistrates
concerned in particular III, X, XVII and XVIII Metropolitan Magistrates, Chennai
and Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore and Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi,
Ramnad; and
(v) In view of the orders
passed for transfer of the pending cases before the Metropolitan/Judicial
Magistrate Courts to the file of this Court, the Director General of Police is
directed to instruct
a) the police officers,
who have received orders from the Magistrates in such cases under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., and
b) the Station House
Officers, who have directly entertained similar complaints in the name of
"petition enquiry",
to obtain opinion from
the Director General/Additional Director General of prosecutions/ Assistant
Public Prosecutors etc. and to file interim/final reports before the
jurisdiction Magistrates within a period of two weeks from to-day.
Compliance report is to be
filed in this regard within three weeks by the Director General of Police.
9. Post the matters after
three weeks.
JI.
TO
a) The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, and
b) All the presiding officers of the
District Courts for instructing suitably the
Judicial Magistrates
