Disposed

N.Muruganandam v. the State Rep. by Its

Madras HC24 Jul 2015CRL OP/18541/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected writ petitions under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court declined to quash the charge sheet outright. Instead, it directed the petitioners to file discharge applications before the Trial Court, noting insufficient material to link them as partners or liable employees in a proprietorship firm.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to file discharge applications under Section 239 Cr.P.C.; closed CRPs and connected MPs.

N.Muruganandam Vs the State Rep. by Its — Corruption | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.07.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP Nos.18541 and 18542 of 2015 and MP.Nos. 1,1 & 2,2, of 2015

¶6

1.N.Muruganandan ... Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.18541 of 2015 2.P.Vijayabharathi ... Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.18542 of 2015

¶7

¶8

The State, Rep by its Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Namakkal District. ... Respondent in both Crl.OPs

¶9

Common Prayer:- Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to charge sheet in C.C.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge, TNPID Court, Coimbatore and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶10

For Petitioner in both Crl.OPs : Mr.A.V.Arun

¶11

For Respondent in both Crl.OPs : Mr.C.Emalias

¶12

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

COMMON ORDER

¶14

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed praying to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge, TNPID Court, Coimbatore, in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶16

On a perusal of the final report, it is seen that these petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A6 and they are accused of offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 420 IPC r/w and Section 5 of the TNPID Act.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that N.Muruganantham (A3) cannot be a partner in M/s.Sunrays Trading Corporation (A1), as it is a proprietorship concern, which is owned by one V.Muthukumar (A2).

¶19

On a reading of the final report, it is the case of the prosecution that M/s.Sunrays Trading Corporation is a proprietorship concern, owned by V.Muthukumar (A2), and N.Muruganantham (A3) acted as an working partner in the said concern.

¶20

It is strongly refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no materials to show that N.Muruganantham is the partner in M/s.Sunrays Trading Corporation.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that P.Vijayabharathi(A6) is admittedly working as a clerk in Canara Bank, Mohanur Branch.

¶22

Even according to the prosecution, the allegations against P.Vijayabharathi (A6) is that, she had canvassed the business for M/s.Sunrays Trading Corporation (A1). There seems to be some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to P.Vijayabharathi(A6). The person, who had merely canvassed for the finance business, cannot be made liable for the offence committed by the company. Admittedly, P.Vijayabharathi is a staff of Canara Bank, Mohanur Branch.

¶23

However, this Court directs both N.Muruganantham and P.Vijayabharathi to file a discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court, provided the charges have not been framed and the Trial Court is directed to look into these aspects in detail and if there are no materials as against N.Muruganantham and P.Vijayabharathi, they shall be discharged from the prosecution.

¶24

With the above direction, these Criminal Original Petitions are closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

¶31

The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Namakkal District.

¶32

The Special Judge, TNPID Court, Coimbatore.

¶33

The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
+2cc's to Mr.A.V.Arun, Advocate, S.R.No.37838 & 37837
Crl.OP Nos.18541 and 18542 of 2015
and
Connected MPs
TS(CO)
CA(07/08/2015)

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Muruganandam v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Muruganandam v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Dhanalakshmi Vs State Rep. by

Srividya Vs Karthika

Kakani Govardharan Reddy Vs the Station House Officer

Mr.Mohamed Anzer, Vs the State through

S.Abirai@ Abi Vs v.B.Adhinarayanan

S.Abirami@ Abi Vs v.B.Adhinarayanan