'Foisted False Case With Malafide Intention': Madras High Court Transfers Cases Against Whistleblower-Journalist To CB-CID

The Madras High Court has recently transferred pending cases against a whistleblower journalist to the Crime Brance – Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) citing that the Commissioner of Police (Vepery) and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central Crime Branch) seemed to have foisted false cases with malicious intention. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that though it was a settled law that the accused could not choose the investigation agency to investigate the case against him/her, in exceptional circumstances, the court could exercise its extraordinary power when the situation demands credibility and instill confidence in the investigation. “It is a settled law that the accused cannot seek for transfer of investigation, since he has no say in the investigation done by the investigating agency. The accused cannot choose the investigation agency to do investigation in the cases registered against the accused. However, in exceptional cases, constitutional Courts can exercise the extraordinary power where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in the investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications,” the court observed. The court was hearing a plea by Krishnakumar @ Varaaki who had approached the court to transfer the pending investigation against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other investigation agency. Varaaki informed the court that he was an activist, journalist, and whistleblower who was involved in exposing the corruption and misconduct in public offices. He submitted that during the course of his investigative journalism, he had gathered information regarding corruption and misconduct involving the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Corporation, and some registering authorities. He also informed that he had published a video and posted it in his YouTube channel following which the officer developed a personal vendetta against him and started foisting false cases against him by conspiring with other officers. Varaaki argued that all complaints against him were fabricated and orchestrated to harass him to shut his mouth. He submitted that he had a right to a fair investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution and a fair investigation was also necessary for upholding public confidence in the administration of justice. The authorities called for dismissing the plea and argued that Varaaki could not choose the investigation according to his whims and fancies. It was argued that no one could interfere with the investigation of any crime. On perusing the records, the court opined that the officers had foisted false cases to prevent Varaaki's activities. The court also noted that there wouldn't be a fair investigation if the Assistant Commissioner is allowed to continue the investigation. The court also added that the principles of fairness and impartiality will also be affected if the investigation is allowed to be continued by the officers. “As stated supra, no complaint was lodged for the present occurrence and all are imaginary allegations. Therefore, there will not be fair investigation, if the second respondent is allowed to investigate in all the FIRs as against the petitioner. The petitioner's right to a fair investigation is guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Furthermore, the malicious intent of the respondents 1 and 2 intimates an indirect investigation process, violating the principles of fairness and impartiality,” the court said. Thus, the court directed the cases to be transferred to the CBCID. The court directed the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID to appoint an Investigating Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and to complete the investigation within 12 weeks. The court also directed the Director General of Police (Administration) to monitor the investigation and ensure that the investigation is done fairly. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Rajkumar Pandian Counsel for Respondent: Mr. K. M. D. Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl.side) Case Title: V. R. Krishnakumar v. Commissioner of Police and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 63 Case No: Crl.O.P.Nos.31418, 31419, 31425, 31426 and 31429 of 2024Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

'Foisted False Case With Malafide Intention': Madras High Court Transfers Cases Against Whistleblower-Journalist To CB-CID

Upasana Sajeev

Tags