Madras HC transfers intimidation case against IPS officer to CBI after CID says complaint against cop was a 'mistake

Chennai: The Madras High Court on Friday transferred to the CBI the investigation into an intimidation case in which IPS officer P Sivanandi is allegedly involved, setting aside a closure report filed by the CB-CID police. Justice PN Prakash transferred the case allowing a plea by D Pandiraj, who has accused Sivanandi, an inspector general of police (IGP), of intimidating him to withdraw a cheating complaint he had filed against some persons in 2015. The CB-CID had filed the closure report stating that the complaint was a mistake of fact. [caption id=“attachment_5077691” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File photo of Madras high court. IBNLive[/caption] The court had transferred the case to CB-CID from the local police on 24 July, 2015, observing that it was a textbook case demonstrating the ’evil effects’ of an unholy nexus between a serving senior police officer, lawyers, businessmen and goondas. In his order, Justice Prakash referred to a siege protest by a group of laywers at the then high court chief justice’s residence here in 2015 as a fallout of the intimidation case and said mobile phone records of Sivanandi showed that he was in touch with two of the advocates. “Dictates of common sense state that the attack (protest) would not have been made possible without the backstage support of a senior police officer like Sivanandi,” Justice Prakash said. “The question that this court poses is what business an inspector general of police has to keep speaking to the lead actors in this play. Unless he was interested in the affairs, there was no reason whatsoever for him to have got himself involved in a private dispute between two businessmen,” he said. On perusal of the case diary and the statement of witnesses, the court came to know that Sivanandi had engaged some people to oversee the withdrawal of the complaints by Pandiraj, the judge added. Pursuant to this, they went and met the advocates of Pandriaj and also went to the magistrate court to ensure that he gave a petition withdrawing the complaint and thereafter, collected the documents and returned the same to Sivanandi, Justice Prakash noted. A case was registered on 2 April, 2015, on the basis of the complaint by Pandiraj, against Sujai Anand, Shylaja Reddy, S V Subramanian and others for allegedly cheating him of Rs 50 lakh. The complainant had invested the amount in a company floated by the accused. Later, a gang attempted to kidnap Pandiraj, prompting him to lodge another police complaint implicating Sivanandi and others. An FIR was filed based on this complaint for alleged intimidation. A third case was registered in connection with the ruckus created by the lawyers at the chief justice’s residence. The advocates had allegedly barged into his the chief justice’s house asking him to take up bail petitions of the accused in the intimidation case. The judge said the CB-CID in its final report had made damning disclosures, demonstrating how money was distributed to the lawyers for staging the protest. The report, while referring to conduct of certain groups of lawyers in lower courts, also speaks about the existence of two teams – Gate Team and Bike Team – in the Saidapet court campus, he said. This court “reliably understands” that ordinary litigants and advocates from other bars are required to pay protection money to the Gate Team for defending an accused, he said. The services of the Bike Team are available for illegal dispossession of persons from disputed properties and for related attacks, he said. Perhaps, the fear of these gangs could also be one of the reasons for the magistrates not even taking the charge sheets on file, each one hoping that he can pass on the baton to his successor, the judge noted in his order. Justice Prakash said it was time for the high court to “seriously explore the suggestions given in the Justice K Chandru Committee report, wherein the ills plaguing the magistracy in the Chennai city have been set out and the remedies, therefore, have been prescribed.” He then directed the registry to place the case of the attack on the then chief justice’s residence before the chief justice to consider all these aspects and if warranted, pass orders constituting a special bench for monitoring the trial.