Veeramani POCSO Case: Madras High Court Refuses To Entertain Fresh Plea For CBI Probe, Calls It Attempt To Stall Proceedings

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that a single judge had already dismissed a similar plea, taking note of the substantial progress made by the Special Investigation Team investigating the offence. The court noted that the petitioner had not projected any valid reason for transferring the probe. The court thus remarked that the plea was only filed to stall the proceedings and not with a bona fide cause.

“We do not find any valid ground projected by the petitioner for seeking the reliefs. The present public interest litigation is filed only to stall the proceedings and not with any bona fide cause,” the court said.

Since the court showed disinclination to entertain the plea, the petitioner requested the court to withdraw the plea. Accepting the request, the court dismissed the plea as withdrawn.

It may be noted that Veeramani and two aides were arrested by the Anti-Vice Squad on August 28, over alleged rape of minor girls. The police had stated that the case was registered upon receiving a USB drive by the Intelligence and Technology Police Unit (ITPU) containing video clips which allegedly showed Veeramani sexually assaulting juvenile girls. The police also stated that the investigation revealed that Veeramani had rented a house in Chennai's Teynampet where he lured the victims and sexually assaulted them. The two caretakers of the house, Mahendra Simhan and his wife Shanti, were also arrested along with Veeramani, and the three were lodged in Puzhal prison.

The case was registered for offences under Sections 7,8,15(1), and 21(1) of the POCSO Act, Sections 354(A), 354(C), 201, and 120(B) of IPC and Sections 66(E), and 67(B) of the IT Act. The State also formed a Special Investigation Team, comprising high-ranking female officers, to conduct an investigation in the case.

Since the videos in connection with the offence were being circulated online, Tulir, an NGO had approached the court to restrain media houses from publishing the Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM). An interim injunction was passed by the court restraining the media houses from publishing the videos and asking them not to hold debates with details of the investigation.

Previously, Varaaki, an investigative journalist, had approached the court seeking to transfer the investigation in the case from the SIT to the CBI. Arguing that high-ranking officials were involved in the case, he raised an apprehension that the SIT would not carry the investigation independently & effectively, necessitating a probe by an independent agency.

Refusing to order a CBI probe, the single judge had remarked that the SIT should be given breathing time to collect all the evidence in connection with the case.

The present plea was filed by a social activist and registered advocate clerk, G Devarajan. It was argued that the earlier team, which was conducting the investigation, had attempted to drop charges against Veeramani, but the Special Court had directed further investigation, which brought attention to the crimes. He further argued that the present investigation, though being conducted by different officers, was working under the same Commissioner of Police, whose team had earlier dropped the proceedings.

He thus argued that any report filed by the prosecution would only be a false report to make some officer a scapegoat, allowing the real culprit to go scot-free. Thus, the petitioner had sought to transfer the investigation to an independent investigation agency over which the State could not have any control.

The court, however, was not inclined to accept the submissions. The court noted that the single judge was already taking note of the issue and had even refused a similar plea for a CBI probe. Thus, the court showed its disinclination to entertain the plea, following which it was withdrawn.