Chennai, Oct 14:
The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to transfer the investigation into the POCSO cases against Gem Granites owner Veeramani to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), after the petitioner sought permission to withdraw it.
The petition was filed by Chennai-based advocate C Rajasekaran. According to the petition, the Central Crime Branch registered a sexual assault case based on a pen drive provided by a child welfare activist. The police initially filed a closure report before the special court, stating that the minor victims could not be identified during the investigation and that the accused could not be arrested. However, the special court refused to accept the report and ordered further investigation. Subsequently, Veeramani and others were arrested, the petition stated.
The petitioner said the victims had since been identified and their statements recorded, and that the investigation was progressing swiftly. However, he alleged that media reports based on speculation were linking political party leaders and others to the case, potentially obstructing the investigation and creating doubts among the public.
The petition also pointed out that photographs and videos showing Veeramani alongside leaders of ruling and opposition parties were being circulated on social media, creating an impression that political leaders were connected to the accused. Citing concerns over the alleged politicisation of the case, the petitioner sought a transfer of the investigation to the CBI or a special investigation team (SIT). He also sought a ban on the publication of photographs and videos related to the case by the media and on social media platforms.
When the petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arulmurgan, the petitionerās counsel sought permission to withdraw it, pointing out that the State government had already constituted an SIT to investigate the case.
The Chief Justice questioned the petitioner about the circumstances that necessitated filing the plea. In response, the petitionerās counsel explained that the petition had been filed before the SIT was constituted. Accepting the explanation, the Bench permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the petition.