Disposed¶24

V.Balaji v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Feb 2025CRL OP/9435/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Crl.O.P.No.9435 of 2022, S.482 CrPC direction petition for further investigation refused; de facto complainant permitted to produce documents in his possession and assist prosecution; documents to be marked in accordance with law; trial Court free to summon other persons based on evidence; C.C.No.9149 of 2017, Metropolitan Magistrate CCB & CBCID Egmore; bank officials; occurrence of 2013-14; petition and connected Crl.M.P.No.5505 of 2022 closed; decision date 27.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition stands closed with the above observations (permission to the petitioner to produce documents and assist the prosecution, marking of such documents in accordance with law, and liberty to the trial Court to summon any other person); the connected miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.P.No.5505 of 2022) is also closed.

V.Balaji Vs Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent police should be directed to conduct further investigation in C.C.No.9149 of 2017 by collecting vital documents said to be in the possession of the de facto complainant and the Bank, which would establish the prosecution case against the bank officials.

¶22

Court's answer

Instead of directing further investigation, the petitioner (de facto complainant) may be permitted to produce all the documents in his possession and assist the prosecution; any documents so produced may be marked in accordance with law.

¶23

Key takeaways

If the trial Court finds from the evidence that any other person has to be summoned to face the trial, the trial Court may do so.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Dr.V.Balaji, the de facto complainant, seeking a direction to the Inspector of Police, CCB, Team-4, EDF-II, Veppery, Chennai to conduct further investigation in C.C.No.9149 of 2017, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CBCID cases at Egmore, Chennai, on the ground that vital documents in the possession of the de facto complainant and the Bank, which would establish the prosecution case against the bank officials, had not been collected by the Investigating Officer. Observing that the alleged occurrence took place in 2013-14, the Court (Sunder Mohan, J.) declined to direct further investigation; instead, the petitioner was permitted to produce all documents in his possession and assist the prosecution, such documents to be marked in accordance with law, with liberty to the trial Court to summon any other person found necessary from the evidence. The Criminal Original Petition and the connected Crl.M.P.No.5505 of 2022 stand closed.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9435 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.02.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.9435 of 2022

¶7

and Crl.M.P.No.5505 of 2022

Dr.V.Balaji

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Inspector of Police, CCB, Team-4, EDF-II, Veppery, Chennai.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to direct the respondent Police to conduct the further investigation in C.C.No.9149 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CBCID cases at Egmore, Chennai by appreciating the facts submitted by the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Dhamodaran For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to direct the

¶17

respondent to conduct the further investigation in C.C.No.9149 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB & CBCID

¶18

cases at Egmore, Chennai

¶19

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

¶20

1/4

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.9435 of 2022

¶22

The main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/de facto complainant is that certain vital documents which are in possession of the de facto complainant and in the Bank were not collected by the Investigating Officer, and that would establish the prosecution case against the bank officials.

¶23

Considering the fact that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2013-14, this Court is of the view that instead of directing further investigation, the petitioner may be permitted to produce all the documents in his possession and assist the prosecution. Such documents, if any produced, may be marked in accordance with law. It is needless to say that if the trial Court finds from the evidence that any other person has to be summoned to face the trial, the trial Court may do so.

¶24