The Chennai High Court has ordered departmental action against two Virugambakkam police inspectors after allegations that a land-grabbing complainant was threatened to withdraw his complaint. The court has also directed an inquiry by an officer of Joint Commissioner rank from outside the limits of the Koyambedu police district and sought a report by December 4.
The order was issued by Justice N Ramesh while hearing an anticipatory bail petition filed by Balthurai, one of three people booked in connection with an alleged attempt to create forged documents for a 1,800-square-foot plot in Kumaran Colony, Vadapalani, Chennai. The case was registered on a complaint by a person identified as Surya.
According to the report, the police had registered a case against Balthurai and two others over the alleged preparation of fake documents relating to the property. Balthurai subsequently approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
During an earlier hearing, the court had directed the Virugambakkam police inspector to investigate the complaint and submit a report. When the matter came up again, it was submitted that the inspector had threatened Surya to withdraw the complaint. The proceedings also referred to a separate complaint filed by Balthurai’s wife, based on which a case was registered against Surya under the law relating to offences against women, and Surya was arrested.
The court, while dismissing Balthurai’s anticipatory bail petition, directed the Chennai city police commissioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings against inspectors Munisekar and Rajesh of the Virugambakkam police station. It also ordered that the inquiry be conducted by an officer of Joint Commissioner rank who does not come under the Koyambedu police district, separating the investigation from the local police structure involved in the matter.
The allegations concerning threats and the conduct of the police officials remain matters for the disciplinary proceedings and the court-directed inquiry. The order places the focus on how complaints involving disputed urban property are investigated, particularly when allegations are made that the complainant faced pressure after approaching the police.
The High Court’s direction requires the external inquiry officer to submit a report by December 4. The reported order does not establish the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings or the underlying land dispute.
