The Madras High Court on Thursday ordered notice to Greater Chennai Police on a plea by by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) Member of Parliament C.Ve. Shanmugam seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into ransacking of party office and alleged theft of documents by supporters of expelled leader O. Panneerselvam on July 11.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar granted time till August 25 for Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak to obtain instructions from the police. Mr. Shanmugam's counsel M. Mohamed Riyaz said the party was founded in 1972 and that it had ruled the State for 32 out of 50 years of its existence. The party's general council meeting had taken place at Vangaram near Chennai on July 11.
Mr. Panneerselvam had filed a case in the Madras High Court against the conduct of the general council meet fearing that certain decisions might be taken against him. The High Court dismissed his petition at 9 a.m. on that day and permitted the meet to begin at 9.15 a.m. Minutes before the pronouncement of orders, the expelled leader went to the party office in Royapettah with his supporters.
Stating that his supporters broke open the doors and trespassed into the office, the MP, in his affidavit, alleged that they had looted several documents including bank pass books and registration certificates of 37 vehicles owned by the party. He also stated that petty cash of Rs. 31,000 was missing and that the rioters damaged two of the party vehicles that were parked inside the office.
Further, pointing out that the party office was sealed by a Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) pursuant to the violence and that he was able to gain access only after getting the RDO's order quashed by the court, the MP said he lodged a complaint with the police on July 23 setting out all particulars of the looted articles and furnished video footages of the ransacking of party office.
Despite such a complaint making out a cognisable offence on the face of it, the police had not filed a First Information Report (FIR) so far and had chosen to keep the complaint pending after issuance of Community Service Register (CSR) number alone, he complained. "The respondent police are not interested in investigating the complaint with regard to criminal trespass," he said.
Accusing the police of being biased in favour of Mr. Panneerselvam, he said they had not even bothered to visit the party office and take a look at the crime scene. He insisted that the investigation should be transferred either to the CBI or any other investigating agency since the probe by the State police lacked credibility.
