Latest news with #CBCID
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC refrains from interfering with ADGP's suspension
The Supreme Court on Thursday refrained from interfering with the suspension of senior IPS officer and additional director general of police (ADGP) HM Jayaram in a kidnapping case involving a minor, even as it set aside the Madras High Court's order that directed his arrest and requested the high court chief justice to transfer the matter to another bench. The top court said the matter now warranted a 'dispassionate' investigation by a specialised agency, prompting the Tamil Nadu government to agree to hand over the probe to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID), which it described as the 'highest investigating body in the state.' A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan passed the directions after senior counsel Siddharth Dave, representing the Tamil Nadu government, informed the court that Jayaram's suspension was not based on any judicial order but on provisions of the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which allow suspension of an officer against whom a criminal investigation is pending. Jayaram, a senior officer of the 1995 batch, was suspended by the state government earlier this week after he was alleged to have played a part in the kidnapping of a 16-year-old boy in May, reportedly linked to an inter-caste marriage. The Madras High Court directed the state to arrest Jayaram, stating that 'no one is above the law,' triggering the suspension order shortly after his detention by the Tiruvallur district police. However, the Supreme Court, which questioned the suspension order on Wednesday, took note of the state's latest submission on Thursday and clarified that it would not intervene in the suspension, while allowing Jayaram the liberty to challenge it before the appropriate forum. 'Looking into the controversial circumstances under which the impugned order was passed, we are of the view that the investigation of this case may be handed over to CBCID,' the bench recorded in its order, while also directing that 'the direction of the high court to secure arrest and take action against the petitioner is hereby set aside.' During the hearing, the bench engaged in a pointed exchange with the Tamil Nadu government's counsel, expressing concern over the suspension in the absence of any arrest. 'If he has not been arrested, on what basis has he been suspended?' the bench asked Dave. Dave responded: 'Rules provide that an officer can be placed under suspension if there is a criminal investigation pending against him. It was not based on the order of the high court. It is totally under the rules.' To this, the bench suggested the state consider transferring the probe to an independent agency. 'You might consider transferring this investigation to a CID or some other independent agency for a dispassionate probe. You may even seek a transfer of this matter to a different judge,' the court observed. Jayaram's counsel interjected to argue that the high court overstepped its authority. 'The court acted like police and ordered for his arrest. I was not even named in the FIR,' he submitted. The bench, however, refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations but reiterated that the state was well within its power to suspend the officer, while noting that Jayaram could always challenge the order. 'If the state wants to suspend you in exercise of its power, we cannot come in the way at this stage. You challenge the suspension order under the rules,' the bench said. Dave, upon taking instructions, returned to the bench later and submitted: 'We will entrust this matter to the CBCID, which is the highest investigating body in the state.' In its written order, the Supreme Court recorded that Dave had clarified the suspension was under statutory rules and independent of the high court's direction. The order noted: 'After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petitioner will have his remedies to assail the order of suspension…We would also request the chief justice of the high court to assign this matter and all connected FIRs to another bench.' Jayaram's suspension followed allegations that he abetted the kidnapping of a minor boy, whose elder brother married a woman from a different caste. The woman's family, allegedly opposed to the marriage, is accused of abducting the younger sibling in an attempt to coerce the couple. According to the complaint by the boy's mother, her home was raided by the woman's family members last month, who used Jayaram's official vehicle in the abduction. The boy was later found injured near a hotel. The case has led to the arrest of five individuals, including the woman's father, a lawyer, and a now-dismissed policewoman. Their statements reportedly implicated both Jayaram and KV Kuppam MLA 'Poovai' M Jagan Moorthy, who has since appeared for questioning in compliance with court directions. Earlier this week, Justice P Velmurugan of the Madras High Court ordered Jayaram's arrest while hearing Moorthy's pre-arrest bail plea, slamming the alleged use of 'Kangaroo courts' and abuse of power.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
‘State has powers': SC declines to interfere with senior cop's suspension in TN
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday refrained from interfering with the suspension of senior police officer and Tamil Nadu's additional director general of police (ADGP) HM Jayaram in a kidnapping case involving a minor, even as it set aside the Madras High Court's order that directed his arrest. The top court also requested the high court chief justice to transfer the matter to another bench. The court said the matter warranted a 'dispassionate' investigation by a specialised agency, prompting the state government to agree to hand over the probe to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID), which it described as the 'highest investigating body in the state.' A bench of justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan passed the directions after senior counsel Siddharth Dave, representing the Tamil Nadu government, informed the court that Jayaram's suspension on June 17 was not based on any judicial order but on provisions of the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which allow suspension of an officer against whom a criminal investigation is pending. Jayaram, an Indian Police Service officer (IPS) of the 1995 batch, was suspended by the state government earlier this week after his alleged role emerged in the kidnapping of a 16-year-old boy in May after his elder brother married a woman without approval from their families in Thiruvallur district. On June 16, the high court's justice P Velmurugan directed the state to arrest Jayaram, stating that 'no one is above the law,' triggering the suspension order shortly after his detention by the Tiruvallur district police. However, the Supreme Court, which had questioned the suspension order on Wednesday, took note of the state's submission on Thursday and clarified that it would not intervene in the suspension, and allowed Jayaram to challenge it before the appropriate forum. 'Looking into the controversial circumstances under which the impugned order was passed, we are of the view that the investigation of this case may be handed over to CBCID,' the bench recorded in its order, while also directing that 'the direction of the high court to secure arrest and take action against the petitioner is hereby set aside.' During the hearing, the bench engaged in a pointed exchange with the Tamil Nadu government's counsel, expressing concern over the suspension in the absence of any arrest. 'If he has not been arrested, on what basis has he been suspended?' the bench asked Dave. Dave responded: 'Rules provide that an officer can be placed under suspension if there is a criminal investigation pending against him. It was not based on the order of the high court. It is totally under the rules.' To this, the bench suggested the state consider transferring the probe to an independent agency. 'You might consider transferring this investigation to a CID or some other independent agency for a dispassionate probe. You may even seek a transfer of this matter to a different judge,' the court observed. Jayaram's counsel interjected to argue that the high court had overstepped its authority. 'The court acted like police and ordered his arrest. I was not even named in the FIR,' he submitted. The bench, however, refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations but reiterated that the state was well within its power to suspend the officer. 'If the state wants to suspend you in exercise of its power, we cannot come in the way at this stage. You challenge the suspension order under the rules,' the bench said. Dave, upon taking instructions, returned to the bench later and submitted: 'We will entrust this matter to the CBCID, which is the highest investigating body in the state.' In its written order, the Supreme Court recorded that Dave clarified that the suspension was under statutory rules and independent of the high court's direction. The order noted: 'After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petitioner will have his remedies to assail the order of suspension… We would also request the chief justice of the high court to assign this matter and all connected FIRs to another bench.' Jayaram's suspension followed allegations that he abetted the kidnapping of a minor boy, whose elder brother reportedly married a woman from a different caste. The woman's family, allegedly opposed to the marriage, is accused of abducting the younger sibling in an attempt to coerce the couple. According to the complaint by the boy's mother, her home was raided by the woman's family members last month, who used Jayaram's official vehicle in the abduction. The boy was later found injured near a hotel. The case has led to the arrest of five individuals, including the woman's father, a lawyer, and a now-dismissed policewoman. Their statements reportedly implicated both Jayaram and KV Kuppam MLA 'Poovai' M Jagan Moorthy, who has since appeared for questioning in compliance with high court directions.
United News of India
03-06-2025
- Business
- United News of India
TN CB-CID unearths multi-crore Iridium Copper scam posing as RBI officials, six held
Chennai, June 3 (UNI) In a significant breakthrough, the Tamil Nadu Crime Branch-CID wing has unearthed a multi-crore Iridium Copper scam by the culprits posing as RBI officials and arrested six people in this connection. A CB-CID release here on Tuesday said those arrested included five from Tamil Nadu and one from Telangana and several incriminating materials were seized from them. It was a case of cheating of public by some groups across Tamil Nadu and neighbouring states by collecting unauthorized deposits claiming that several thousand crore rupees has been received from the central government through RBI for the sale of iridium copper. They also con them saying service fee has to be paid to RBI and commission has to be paid to higher officials of RBI to release the said amount. These scamsters assure exorbitant returns in the range of crores by showing fabricated RBI bonds to make the victims believe their scam. The scam came to light when a complaint was lodged by a civilian in February 2024 on the 'Sachet' website of Reserve Bank of India for lodging complaints against unauthorized deposit accepted by unincorporated bodies. Subsequently, a complaint was filed by RBI Assistant General Manager A.J. Kennedy in May 2024 to the Chennai Police Commissioner and the same was directed to the CBCID. After conducting a preliminary enquiry, a case has been registered in Salem OCU CBCID unit U/s 419, 465, 468, 471, 420 IPC and 66 D Information Technology Act 2000 r/w five Emblems and Name (Prevention of Improper use) Act, 1950 and taken up for investigation in March 2025. During investigation, the accused persons Nithyanandham, Chandra (both from Thanjavur district of Tamil Nadu) were arrested and remanded on May 28. Further investigations led to the arrest of four more accused Anbumani from Dharmapuri district, Muthusamy a native of Salem district, Kesavan also from Salem and Gadi Charla Kishore Kumar of of Telangana state. They were subsequently remanded in custody. The release said a gold-coloured metal, few forged documents, Cell phones with incriminating materials have been seized from the accused persons. Inquiries revealed that the accused have cheated many people across Tamil Nadu and in Andhra Pradesh. So far, around 20 victims from Chennai, Thanjavur, Coimbatore, Salem, Namakkal and Dharmapuri, have been identified and said to have been cheated of money to the tune of Rs 4.5 crores collectively by the accused persons. The scamsters induced victims to invest money in the allegedly secretly maintained central government Iridium trade scheme by showing forged credit certificates in the name of the depositors with RBI emblem. Thereafter, when the victims contacted them for the promised returns, the accused kept dodging them. After a point, they hired persons to pose as RBI officials and meet the victims in star hotels in Delhi or Mumbai and assure them of returns. Once this is done, they even go to the extent of creating a bank account and share credentials with the victims saying money will be deposited in this account. Investigation is going on to arrest remaining persons of this racket and to identify more victims. UNI GV 0630
News18
02-06-2025
- News18
Supreme Court Clears Teacher Of Abetment Charge, Says ‘Scolding Alone Not Suicide Trigger'
Last Updated: The case arose from an FIR registered by the CBCID under Sections 306 IPC and 174 CrPC, after a student allegedly took his life by hanging himself in a hostel room in 2014. In relief to a school correspondent in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court has quashed charges framed against him under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide) in connection with the suicide of a hostel student in 2014. The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed the appeal filed by the accused against the order of the Madras High Court dated June 14, 2024, which had rejected his plea for discharge. The Court observed, 'No normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life…such scolding was the least, a correspondent was required to do, to ensure that the complaint made against the deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial measures effected." The case arose from an FIR registered by the CBCID under Sections 306 IPC and 174 CrPC, after a student allegedly took his life by hanging himself in a hostel room. The charge sheet, however, only included the charge under Section 306 IPC. According to the Appellant, who served as the correspondent of the school and was in charge of its operations, he had merely reprimanded the student after receiving a complaint from another student. The appellant submitted that the reprimand was issued in his capacity as a guardian and authority figure, to ensure discipline and order in the hostel premises. It was contended that there was no personal enmity, and that the appellant could not have foreseen that a mere scolding would lead the student to take such an extreme step. The appellant argued that there was no criminal intent or mens rea, an essential ingredient for invoking Section 306 IPC. Notably, the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by AAG Amit Anand Tiwari, conceded that there appeared to be no justifiable ground to prosecute the appellant under Section 306 IPC. The complainant, who is also the father of the deceased, did not appear before the Court despite valid service of notice. Taking note of the facts and submissions, the Court held that no ordinary person in the appellant's position could have anticipated such a tragic outcome from a verbal reprimand based on a peer complaint. The Court emphasized that in the absence of criminal intent, no offence under Section 306 IPC was made out. 'In the considered opinion of this Court, under such admitted factual position, no mens rea can be attributed to the appellant, much less with regard to abetment of suicide committed by the deceased," the Bench held. Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the order framing charges. The appellant has been discharged from the case, bringing an end to the criminal proceedings initiated against him. All pending applications in the matter were also disposed of.
