Partly allowed

Rajesh Malhotra v. a.R.Sridharan, 59 Yrs

Madras HC13 Feb 2020CRL OP/18337/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash a private complaint against two petitioners for alleged false deposition, holding that the case instituted by petitioners had been concluded.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; private complaint in C.C.No.472 of 2013 against petitioners 2 and 3 quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Rajesh Malhotra Vs a.R.Sridharan, 59 Yrs — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.18337 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 & 3/2013, Crl.M.P.No.3622/2018

¶6

1.Rajesh Malhotra

¶7

2.Ravee Raman Malhotra

¶8

3.Atul Malhotra

¶9

... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3

¶10

vs.

¶11

A.R.Sridharan ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.472 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthasarathy

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.Xavier Felix

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioners are defacto complainants in Cr.No.16 of 2005, registered against the respondent/ private complainant for the offences under Section 147, 148, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC r/w 7(1) (a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the respondent on 21.02.2005 in C.C.NO.176/2005, thereafter the said case was transferred from Poonamallee, Judicial Magistrate, Alandur on administrative grounds and renumbered as C.C.No.752/2009 and during the trial, the petitioner deposed himself as a Director of VAK Engineering Private Limited and aggrieved by the alleged false evidence, the respondent / Defacto complainant filed private complaint on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in C.C.No.472/2013 and challenging the same, present petition is filed.

¶17

Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any false allegation before the Trial Court. In fact https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aggrieved party is the Company and the Managing Director, who

¶18

made a complaint against the petitioners, before this Court. Therefore, the Trial Court has to take cognizance under Section 340 IPC and it is for the Court to take cognizance and it is not for the respondent/aggrieved person and on that ground, the present petition is filed.

¶19

Mr.Xaviour Felix, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / Defacto complainant would submit that though a case, instituted by the petitioners against the respondent was ended in acquittal, he did not have any intention to continue to prosecute the private complaint any more against petitioners namely Mr.Ravi Raman malhothra and Mr.Atul Malhothra and would further add that the respondent/complainant had grievance only against the 1st petitioners not against other petitioners and conceded that no offense was made out by respondents 2 and 3.

¶20

In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the complaint in C.C.No.472 of 2013 against the petitioners 2 and 3 are quashed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶23

//True copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

To 1.Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.R.Parthasarathy, Advocate SR.No.13171

¶28

+1cc to Mr.S.Xavier Felix, Advocate SR.No.11715

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.18337 of 2013

¶30

MR(CO) GMY(13/07/2020)

¶31

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

Rajesh Malhotra v. a.R.Sridharan, 59 Yrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Malhotra v. a.R.Sridharan, 59 Yrs

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

K.Arumugam, S/O.S.Kandan, Vs the State Rep.by Deputy

N.Subash Vs State Rep. by

Dr.P.Sivasabaapathi, Vs the State Rep.by the Inspector

The Deputy Superintendent of Vs T.Ratnapandian

R.Elayaselvan Vs City Public Prosecutor

Kothandapani@ R.Kotandabany Vs the State Rep.by