Dismissed

Subramanya Sharma, v. Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC16 Jul 2018CRL RC/814/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition, filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., sought to set aside an order dismissing a discharge petition. The Court, examining the prosecution material including witness statements and a compliance letter, found sufficient prima facie evidence to frame charges and dismissed the revision. The Court held that the petitioner can still challenge evidence in trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed.

Subramanya Sharma, Vs Deputy Superintendent of — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 16.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.814 of 2018

¶6

Subramanya Sharma ... Petitioner/Accused No.7 Vs.

¶7

Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to discharge the petitioner/Accused 7 in C.C.No.15/2014 by setting aside the Crl.M.P.No.3626 of 2015 on the file of the learned XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Shahjahan For Respondent : Mr. K. Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor for CBI ORDER

¶8

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed seeking direction against the dismissal order of the discharge petition passed by the learned XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai dated 05.02.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.3626 of 2015. The revision petitioner herein is arrayed as A7.

¶9

2 According to the prosecution, while he was serving as a Principal of Adhiparasakthi Dental College and Hospital, Melmaruvathur, he had forwarded compliance report for getting affiliation to start Master degree course in Dental. The petitioner had sent a letter dated 21.12.2012 to DCI informing that the deficiencies noted during earlier inspection has been complied with. Later, it is found that the compliance report is false as the inspection team, which visited the premises on receipt of the compliance report sent by the petitioner herein had found that without complying the deficiency pointed out earlier in the inspection reports, the petitioner has sent report falsely claiming compliance.

¶10

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

¶11

3 The trial Court after perusing the records relied upon by the prosecution had found that prima facie material available to frame charges against the accused particularly after perusing the statements of witnesses shown as LW.25 & LW.36 and the letter of this petitioner dated 21.12.2012 addressed to Dental Council of India.

¶12

4 This Court also had an occasion to peruse the entire documents relied on by the prosecution while dealing the discharge petitions of other co-accused. This Court is satisfied there are materials available to frame charge against the petitioner along with other accused, therefore, this Court finds that there is no error or illegality in the impugned order of the dismissal of the discharge petition. Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶13

5 However, it is always open to the petitioner/accused to
dispute the genuineness of his letter as well as the previous
statements of the witnesses incriminating him during trial.
Dismissal of the revision petition shall not stand on the way of
the trial Court appreciating the evidence to be let in by the
prosecution.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpl
To
1 The XII Additional Special Court for CBI Cases,
Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBI/ACB/Chennai.
3 The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.M.Shahjahan, Advocate sr.no.46747
Crl.R.C.No.814 of 2018
nr 31/07/2018

¶14

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

Subramanya Sharma, v. Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramanya Sharma, v. Deputy Superintendent of

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

M.Gobi Shankar, Aged 42 Vs the Chief Secretary/

R.Muthusamy, M/a 51 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

N.Kamalahasan Vs Inspector of Police

L.Ramanathan, M/a 64 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Manivannan, Aged 56 Years, Vs State Rep. by

V.Baskar, Aged 43 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police