Dismissed

M/S.Hand in Hand India Rep by v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Aug 2016CRL OP/9718/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer for further investigation. The court held the petition was not maintainable as a prior order dismissed the earlier petition finding no materials against the accused, invoking Section 362 Cr.P.C. while noting the Supreme Court has barred appraisal evidence even after discharge.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed in the interest of law and fact; direction to transfer/case filed. No interim orders.

M/S.Hand in Hand India Rep by Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.08.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P. No.9718 of 2016

¶6

M/s Hand in Hand India rep by its General Manager Mr.K.Thiagarajan No.90-A, Nasarathpet Village Opp.Pachaiyappa's Men's College Little Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram 631 503. Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The Inspector of Police B-3, Kanchi Taluk Police Station Kancheepuram District.

¶9

2.The CBCID

¶10

Rep by the Additional Director General of Police 220, Pantheon Road

¶11

Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Respondents

¶12

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to issue direction to transfer the case in Cr.No.510 of 2012 on the file of the 1st respondent in C.C.No.122 of 2014 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram to the 2nd respondent for further investigation and file report.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar Senior Counsel for M/s AAV Partners

¶14

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to transfer the case in Cr.No.510 of 2012 on the file of the 1st respondent in C.C.No.122 of 2014 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram to the 2nd respondent for further investigation and file report.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

¶16

and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶17

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.

¶18

M/s Hand in Hand India lodged a complaint alleging that one Bhagavandass, their employee had stealthily transferred certain intellectual properties to their erstwhile employee Deepamala on 29.12.2011 and 30.12.2011. On this complaint, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.510 of 2012 on 04.06.2012 for offence u/s 408 IPC and after completing the investigation, filed a Final Report against Bhagavandass in C.C.No.122 of 2014 before Judicial Magistrate-2, Kancheepuram for offences u/s 408 IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2008. M/s Hand in Hand India was not satisfied with the investigation, as it felt that the police had left Deepamala from the array of the accused. Therefore, M/s Hand in Hand India filed Crl.O.P.No.25554 of 2014 with the following prayer:

¶19

"Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the 3rd respondent to conduct further investigation in Crime No.510 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, B3, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Kancheepuram his file under the proper supervision of the 1st and 2nd respondents, and thereby to file a appropriate final report within a stipulated period as fixed by this Court."

¶20

It is the case of M/s Hand in Hand India that even though there are sufficient materials against Deepamala in the Final Report, yet the police had for some reasons not arrayed her as an accused.

¶21

When Crl.O.P.No.25554 of 2014 came up for hearing on 16.09.2014, learned Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that there are sufficient materials against Deepamala and the police are intending to conduct further investigation and file amended charge sheet. Recording the submission, this Court disposed of Crl.O.P.No.25554 of 2014 as follows:

¶22

"4. In view of such submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court deems it fit to direct the 3rd respondent police to file either amended or additional charge sheet arraying the additional accused and on receipt of such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amended or additional charge sheet, the

¶23

concerned Judicial Magistrate Court shall deal with the same in the manner known to law and the petition is accordingly disposed of."

¶24

On coming to know of this, Deepamala filed M.P.No.1 of 2015 in Crl.O.P.No.25554 of 2014 to recall the order dated 16.09.2014 on the ground that the same has been obtained by suppression of facts. This Court re-heard the case and by order dated 04.09.2015 in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in Crl.O.P.No.25554 of 2014, recalled the order dated 16.09.2014, and dismissed Crl.O.P.No.25554 of 2014. In this background, M/s Hand in Hand India has filed the present petition for a direction to the respondent police to conduct further investigation and file Final Report.

¶25

Heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶26

In the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition is not maintainable in the light of Section 362 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as this Court in the order dated 04.09.2015 in M.P.No.1 of 2015 has given a finding in paragraph 24, that there are no materials against Deepamala for the prosecution to proceed against her. That apart, this Court had not only recalled the order dated 16.09.2014, but has also dismissed Crl.O.P.No.25554 of 2014.

¶27

Under such circumstances, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to approach the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 04.09.2015 and the present petition with the same prayer for further investigation cannot be maintained.

¶28

It is the grievance of B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel that, despite there being sufficient materials against Deepamala, on account of the order dated 04.09.2015, she is going scot-free without facing the prosecution. Unfortunately, that cannot be a reason for this Court to entertain this petition and order further investigation, inasmuch as the crux of the allegation in the present petition for transfer is also centered around Deepamala, nor can this Court give a direction to the respondent police to conduct further investigation against Deepamala in view of the order dated 04.09.2015 passed by this Court. However, as held by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others [(2014) 3 SCC 92], even if an accused has been discharged from a prosecution, yet that cannot be a bar for the Court to array him as accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. if evidences surface during trial.

¶29

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

¶30

In the result, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is closed.

¶31

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gms
To
1.The Inspector of Police
B-3, Kanchi Taluk Police Station
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Additional Director General of Police
The CBCID
220, Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
1 cc to M/s.AAV Partners, Advocates, sr.45278
Crl.O.P.No.9718 of 2016
rk co
kra 31.08.2016

¶32

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

M/S.Hand in Hand India Rep by v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Hand in Hand India Rep by v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.R.Venugopal Vs Sumathi

Mr.R.Kanagaraj Vs Mr.P.Murugesan

S.Panchalai Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Kuppulakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Prabhakaran Vs the Inspector of Police

V.S.Samsudeen Vs the Inspector of Police