Dismissed

M.Vaithisubramanian v. v.Narayanswamy

Madras HC30 Jul 2024CRL OP/10244/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed by an accused to set aside an order where the trial court partly allowed production of tax and bank records under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The Court found no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision balancing disclosure against privacy in a money transaction dispute.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition and connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition both dismissed.

M.Vaithisubramanian Vs v.Narayanswamy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.10244 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 30.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.10244 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.7027 of 2024

¶7

M.Vaithisubramanian ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Narayanaswamy ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.21174 of 2023 in C.C.No.12308 of 2010 dated 19.01.2024 by the FTC- V M.M., Saidapet, Chennai.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajarathinam, Sr.counsel for Mr.Sriraam

¶12

For Respondent : No appearance

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to set aside the order passed

¶15

by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.21174 of 2023 in C.C.No.12308 of 2010

¶16

1/4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.10244 of 2024

¶19

2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court which has partially allowed 91 Cr.P.C., petition filed by the accused is before this Court stating that the trial Court has failed to see the petition filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., contains no reason to call for the personal documents of the complainant. The accused did not cross examine the complainant with regard to those documents.

¶20

3. The perusal of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner/accused has sought for production of pan number and income tax return of the complainant for the period 2007 to 2011. The bank account number and statement for the said period, fees received with details from Dhanus Technologies. The trial Court had partly allowed the petition for production of income tax statement for the period 2008-2009, the bank pass book for the period 2008-2009 alone, rest of the documents sought to be produced were disallowed. In sofar as the income tax statement and bank pass book for the relevant period cannot be taken as a personal records of the petitioner, wherein, he can seek privacy. Dispute arising out of money transaction and wherewithal to advance money is now questioned by the complainant and therefore, the trial Court has rightly partly allowed the petition filed under Section 91 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.10244 of 2024

¶22

Cr.P.C., for production of income tax alone.

¶23

4. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order, hence this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶24

30.07.2024

¶25

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No rpl To

¶26

The Fast Track Court, V Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶27

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶28

rpl

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

3/4

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.10244 of 2024

¶32

C rl.O.P.No.10244 of 2024

¶33

30.07.2024

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

M.Vaithisubramanian v. v.Narayanswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vaithisubramanian v. v.Narayanswamy

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

The Director General of Police, Vs Ingram Micro India Private Limited

B.Saleem Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

S.Santhamani Vs State Rep by

D.Balasubramaniam Vs v. Tamilvanan

M/S. Bee K Bee Prints Pvt.Ltd., Vs M/S.Motherland Textile India Pvt. Ltd.

Dr.Vishnupriya Vs the Director General of Police