The High Court of Madras passed a judgment on 28 April 2023 stating that While exercising the powers of this Court under Sec.482 Cr.P.C, the Court has to exercise caution and it can not conduct any roaring enquiry to decide the merits of the entire case .It was stated in the case of Chandra Mahesh v. Inspector of Police and Ors. (CRL.O.P.Nos.27456 &27512 of 2019) which was passed by the single judge bench comprising of HONOURABLE JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in both cases and they are husband and wife. The first accused is the Managing Director and the second accused is the Chief Operative Officer for their company by name ‘ C.R. Finance & Securities (P) Limited’. The defacto complainant is the Managing Director of ‘IFCI Financial Services Limited (IFIN)’. As per the complaint given by the second respondent’s company, it is carrying on business in shares and stocks; the defacto complainant’s company M/s.IFIN is a subsidiary of IFCI, a deemed government company. The petitioners 1& 2/A1 and A2 are husband and wife and they were carrying out business in retail brokerage in shares and stocks in the name and style of ‘C.R. Finance & Securities (P) Limited’. The first accused was the full time director and the second accused was a director of the company. Under a scheme of amalgamation ordered by the High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 21.10.2008, the company of the accused was amalgamated with ‘IFCI Financial Services Limited (IFIN). The company of the accused was amalgamated with an impression that the accused are well versed in business in share market. Subsequent to the amalgamation, the first accused was appointed as the Managing Director of ‘IFCI Financial Services Limited (IFIN) with effect from 01.09.2008 and his annual remuneration is Rs.1,22,54,167 and the second accused was appointed as the Chief Operating Officer of the complainant’s company on 01.10.2009 and the total annual remuneration of Rs.60,00,000/- along with other benefits. Both the accused were in-charge of the day to day affairs of the defacto complainant’s company. Initially the first and second accused were appointed for a period of three years and later they were re-appointed for a further period of three years with effect from 01.09.2011. At that time the second accused was given with hike in remuneration.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted his report by stating that the investigation is still pending and some of the witnesses have been examined. In that case the petitioners can also take the liberty to furnish all those materials which they want to rely on. Since the direction of the court was not followed by the first respondent police, that has been taken serious note by the learned Magistrate, Egmore. Since the FIR has been registered after repeated directions and materials are yet to be collected, I feel it is premature to quash the proceedings. In the result, these Criminal original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ROSHNI SABU, KERALA LAW ACADEMY LAW COLLEGE.
