Madras High Court
R.Giridharan vs A.Shahul Hameed on 30 August, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.Nos.11075 and 6034 of 2021
Crl.O.P.No.20360 of 2021:-
R.Giridharan ...Petitioner
-Vs-
A.Shahul Hameed ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to quash the complaint in C.C.No.220 of 2021 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu in so far as the
petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.P.Prasanth Gopal
For Respondent : Mr.H.Imthiaz Ahamed
Crl.O.P.No.5316 of 2021:-
R.Giridharan ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Kelampakkam Police Station,
Kancheepuram.
(Crime No:27 of 2021).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/19
Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021
2. A.Shahul Hameed ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the record of the Impugned First
Information Report registered as against the Petitioner herein in Crime
No.27 of 2021 on the file of the Kelambakkam Police Station,
Kancheepuram District, under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 469 and 470 of
the Indian Penal Code and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.P.Prasanth Gopal
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.H.Imthiaz Ahamed
Crl.O.P.No.9745 of 2021:-
Raghu ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police,
Kelambakkam Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
(Crime No:27 of 2021).
2. A.A.Shahul Hameed ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime
No.27 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jesus Moris Ravi
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.H.Imthiaz Ahamed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/19
Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021
Crl.O.P.No.3636 of 2021:-
Sowmya Parasuraman ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
The Inspector of Police,
Kelampakkam Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
2. A.A.Shahul Hameed ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the first respondent and
quash the FIR No.27 of 2021 dated 02.02.2021 filed at the Kelampakkam
Police Station, Kanchipuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.Amrith Bhargav
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.H.Imthiaz Ahamed
COMMON ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.20360 of 2021 has been filed to quash the complaint in C.C.No.220 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021
2. The Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.5316 of 2021 has been filed calling for the records of the Impugned First Information Report registered as against the Petitioner herein in Crime No.27 of 2021 on the file of the Kelambakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram District, under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 469 and 470 of the Indian Penal Code and to quash the same.
3. The Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.9745 and 3636 of 2021 have been filed calling for records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.27 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.
4. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.20360 and 5316 of 2021 is one and the same. He is arrayed as 10th accused in C.C.No.220 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu. He is arrayed as 9th accused in Crime No.27 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kelambakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram District. The other petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.9745 and 3636 of 2021 are arrayed as A1 and A8 in Crime No.27 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kelambakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram District. In the private https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 complaint as well as the FIR, the allegations of the respondent/defacto complainant are as follows, “3.a. The Complainant was originally working under A2 one P.I.Peter, who was running a company known as “Noni Biotech Private Limited”, as a factory Manager. A1 is also working in the same Company. Since the above company was about to be closed, the defacto complainant and A1 started a company called “Herb Nutra Lab Pvt.Ltd.,” in the year 2017. A2 has entered into a Deed of Assignment to assign the trade mark in favour of the Herb Nutra Lab Pvt. Ltd., As per the agreement between the parties Health Drink has been produced by the Herb Nutra Lab Pvt.Ltd., and the rights have been given to the other company of A2 known as “Wellness Noni Ltd.,” Accordingly, the company was running healthily.
3.b. Due to the difference of opinion and disputes between the Directors and other Director/promoter A1 was carrying out illegal activities including tax evasion, production of adulterated drinks, inside the company premises, misappropriation of funds, inclusion with the employees of the company called “Wellness Noni Limited.” A1 conspired with others and inducted two new persons as directors and removed the name of the defacto Complainant as the Director of the Company bycreating forged and manipulated documents in MCA e-portal with the help of A10 and A9 Chartered Accountant and Company Secretary respectively. Besides when the defacto complainant was not in the office, the documents were also removed by A1. The defacto complainant also came to know that new Director Kokila was inducted in respect of which he has given a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police as he has failed to take action. He has also made as Accused No.8. According to the defacto complainant A9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 has forwarded Forms to the RoC indicating that Kokila was appointed as Director and the auditor was also filed such documents before Registrar of Companies. The previous complaint given by the defacto complainant pending investigation by the Kelambakkam Police. According to him all the documents submitted to the Registrar of Companies are forged documents. Hence, he filed private complaint.”
5. The defacto complainant lodged a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.1918 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 14.02.2020 directed the Inspector of Police, Kelambakkam Police Station, to investigate the matter and file a final report for proceeding further and report by 08.05.2020. However, the first respondent did not register any FIR. Thereafter, the defacto complainant lodged another complaint before the Commissioner of Police and the same has been forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Kelambakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram District. Thereafter, it was registered in Crime No.27 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 469 and 470 of IPC. While pending the investigation, the private complaint lodged by the defacto complainant had also been taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons for the very same set of allegations.
Some of the accused persons viz, A1 and A9 filed quash petition before https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.922 and 14500 of 2022 to quash the private complainant in C.C.No.220 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu. It was allowed by this Court by an order dated 23.08.2022 and quashed the entire proceedings in C.C.No.220 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu. Now, these petitioners have filed these petitions to quash the private complaint as well as the FIR registered in Crime No.27 of 2021.
6. A perusal of the private complaint as well as the FIR revealed that on the very same set of allegations, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and as well as the Inspector of Police, Kelambakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram District, registered an FIR in Crime No.27 of 2021.
7. The defacto complainant raised the allegations as against the accused as follows, “a. It has been affirmed by Mr.Ragu (1st Accused), Director, M/s herb Nutra Lab Private Limited that no board meeting was convened on 16.12.2019 and no resolution was passed to appoint one Mr.A.Arunachalam (DIN:03497774) as Director in M/s Herb Nutra Lab Private Limited. Further, Mr.Ragu (1st Accused) has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 asserted that the letter dated 16.12.2019 enclosed along with petitioner's reply notice was not signed by him and was purportedly created by the petitioner in connivance with some vested interests for his personal gain.
b. It has been informed by Mr.Ragu that he had never handed over the DSC to the petitioner to complete the process of director appointment since it is with one Mr.P.I.Peter of M/s Noni Biotech Private Limited. Further, he stated that the petitioner have misused his DSC.
c. It has been informed by Mr.Ragu that the documents enclosed along with the petitioner's reply notice was purportedly created by the petitioner to satisfy some vested interests for his personal gain and was not given to the petitioner for the following reasons;
i. The Form DIR-2 originally uploaded by the petitioner along with DIR-12 on 27.12.2019 contains incomplete 'to address' and 11 paragraphs.
Whereas, the enclosed DIR-2 along with petitioner's reply notice allegedly uploaded on 27.12.2019 contain complete 'to address' and 12 paragraphs.
ii. The declaration of the newly inducted director originally uploaded by the petitioner along with DIR-12 on 27.12.2019 is seen typed at the bottom of the Form DIR-2.
Whereas, the enclosed DIR-2 along with the petitioner's reply notice allegedly uploaded on 27.12.2019 contains 'declaration' as enclosure.
iii. The Form DIR-2 originally uploaded by the petitioner along with DIR-12 on 27.12.2019 shows occupation of the newly inducted director as 'Self employed'.
Whereas the enclosed DIR-2 along with the petitioner's reply notice allegedly uploaded on 27.12.2019 shows occupation of the newly inducted director as 'Business' iv. The extract of the board resolution originally https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 uploaded by the petitioner along with DIR-12 on 27.12.2019 affirm the appointment of Mr.A.Arunachalam (DIN:03497774) at the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 27.12.2019 at 0300 pm. Whereas the enclosed letter addressed to the petitioner along with his reply notice 03.10.2020 refers the appointment of Mr.A.Arunachalam (DIN:03497774) at the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 16.12.2019.
v. Form DIR-12 originally uploaded by the petitioner on 27.12.2019 confirm, ● As per the notice, the board meeting of M/s Herb Nutra Lab Private Limited was scheduled at 1500 hours on 27.12.2019.
st ● Mr.Ragu (1 Accused) uploaded his declaration at 1404 hours on 27.12.2019.
● The petitioner have uploaded the Form DIR-12 along with the attachments at 1432 hours on 27.12.2019. i.e., without the approval of Mr.Ragu, Director and the board of M/s Herb Nutra Lab Private Limited.”
8. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.20360 and 5316 of 2021 is a Charted Accountant and he is discharging the duties in accordance with accepted practice and procedure. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9745 of 2021 is arrayed as A1 in Crime No.27 of 2021 and he is the Director of “Herb Nutra Lab Pvt.Ltd.,” a company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.3636 of 2021 is arrayed as A8 in Crime No.27 of 2021. She is a qualified practising Company Secretary in dealing law related matter including Incorporation of Companies, conduct of Board Meetings and filing of Annual Returns as stipulated by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 the Companies Act, 2013. She was engaged by M/s Herb Nutra Lab Private Limited for her professional services vide 'Letter of Engagement' dated 18.12.2019. Her scope of professional compliance on behalf of the company inter alia includes filing of the E Form No. DIR 12. Originally, there was two directors viz, A1 and the defacto complainant. Because of difference of opinion arose between them, there was a dispute in managing the affairs of the company and the company is under financial crisis.
9. This Court quashed the private complaint filed as against the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.9745 and 3636 of 2021 in C.C.No.220 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu. This Court already dealt with all the issues in a detailed manner as follows, “7. I have perused the entire materials. Admitted documents also filed by both sides. On perusal of the entire private complaint the main dispute appears to be with regard to the removal of the defacto complainant from the company by other directors. The allegation in the private complaint show as if the false documents have been filed in the Dir-12 Form. Therefore, all of them should be prosecuted including the Company Secretary and Chartered Accountant who have filed such form. It is relevant to note that as far as A9 is concerned the company vide letter dated 18.12.2019 has sent certain documents for filing form Dir-12 for appointment of Mrs. Kokila as an Additional Director attaching certified true https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 copy of the Board Resolution appointing Mrs.Kokila as Additional Director and consent from Mrs. Kokila to act as Director, Copy of the Board Minutes dated 16.12.2019 and extract of Director's Register. Pursuant to the above communication addressed to A9, Form No.DIR-12 was uploaded though A9. Except that she has not done anything to thecompany. It is relevant to note that the entire allegation in the private complaint revolve around the removal of the defacto complainant from the company. According to him the form submitted to the Registrar of Companies in Form No.DIR-12 with the false documents and thereby committed a forgery. Much emphasis has been made by the learned counsel for the Respondent on the communication sent by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Though the letters dated 05.02.2020 and 30.04.2020 of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs indicate that based on the complaint of the defacto complainant reply sought from A9 and others, the Registrar of Companies in its letter dated 30.04.2020 observed that though kokila is appointed as Additional Director, however in the said form the designation of Kokila shown as Director instead of Additional Director. Hence filing of Form DIR-12 dated 20.12.2019 for the appointment of Smt. Sadagoban Kokila as Director in the Board should be invalidated and marked as defective as per Rule 10(6) of Companies (Registration offices and fees) Rules 2014. Accordingly the said SRN marked as Defective.
8. Much reliance has placed on the above observation made by the Registrar or Companies. It is relevant to note that Registrar of Companies did not find that the very form itself is forged one by creation of false document. But it is only found that since Kokila was appointed as Additional Director, it is uploaded as Director, which are defective as per the Rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Registrar of Companies have found that the very forms have been created and forged. The letter of the company dated 18.12.2019 itself indicate that Mrs. Kokila was appointed only as an Additional Director.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 Therefore, she was shown as Director instead of Additional Director, it cannot be said that there was a forgery of document. It is only a defect as observed by the Registrar of Companies. The Registrar of Companies has also held that removal of Directorship has not been done in accordance with provision of Section 169 of the Companies Act, 2013. therefore, the matter has been referred to Directorate as per rule 11 of the Companies (Registration office and fees) Rules, 2014 and held that on receiving the instructions action will be taken accordingly.
9. Thereafter, another letter dated 19.10.2020 the Registrar of Companies has directed the defacto complainant to approach appropriate Court of law and get orders from judiciary to de-register the approved DIR-12 Form SRN No.R30767263 filed for removal of Directorship. Pursuant to the above directions, the defacto complainant has filed a petition before the NCLT. By order dated 01.06.2022 the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed the application for non-joinder of necessary parties and also for want of evidence. It is also relevant to note that in a similar set of allegations an FIR has been registered inCr.No.27 of 2021 by the Kelampakkak Police against 7 persons, which was challenged before this Court and this Court has granted stay of investigation Crl.O.P.No.3636 of 2021 on 26.2.2021. It is relevant to note that the crux of the allegations in the private complaint and allegations found in the FIR in Crl.No.27 of 2021 is almost similar. The only difference is in the FIR only 7 persons were implicated. Now 4 other persons also implicated and totally 11 persons were implicated in the private complaint. The entire allegation in the private complaint revolving around the removal of the defacto complainant from the directorship and filing of the forms before the Registrar of Companies. As discussed above, Registrar of Companies have never found that the documents are forged or created. He has only observed that instead of Additional Director it is uploaded as Director. Therefore, it is held to be a defective. Such being the position, unless there is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 evidence of creation of false documents the forgery will not be attracted. It is relevant to note that the main allegation of the defacto complainant is with regard tothe removal of the directorship is oppression and mismanagement. Such a view of the matter remedy lies elsewhere not by way of criminal prosecution. Under Section 241 of the companies Act the defacto complainant has to approach only the Company Law Tribunal for appropriate relief.
10. Except the general allegations that the documents have been forged, no other allegations are found in the complaint. To attract the offence of cheating, there must be a deception on any person to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act of omission causes or likely to causes damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property is said to be cheating. None of the allegation falls under the definition of cheating to attract the offence under Section 420 I.P.C.
11. As far as Section 406 I.P.C. is concerned, admittedly the defacto complainant was the director, his grievance is that he was removed from the directorship. When the company was managed by all the directors, the question ofentrustment by the one of the directors to others will also not arise, all are equally entitled to look after the affairs. In such a view of the matter the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. also would not be attracted. The entrustment has not been established mere dispute on the affairs of the company over the mismanagement and oppression, the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. would not be attracted. As far as Section Section 120B and 379 I.P.C. except general allegations of filing a Form the conspiracy cannot be inferred. The circumstances must clinchingly establish that there must be a conspiracy. Mere dispute in a company and merely because the defacto complainant was removed from the company by valid https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 resolution, without challenging the same one cannot infer that there is a conspiracy.
12. Similarly, to attract the offence under Section 379 I.P.C., except the general allegations in the complaint that petitioners documents have been removed no particulars whatsoever given. Therefore, even the entire statements have been taken on face value, the offence under section 379 I.P.C. on the basis of the general allegation would not be attracted. Admittedly other directors were also in the helm of affairs of the company. Therefore, the question of trespass also will not arise. As far as the Section 467, 468, 469 and 471 I.P.C. are concerned mere change ofdirectorship without establishing forgery or any finding by Tribunal in this regard these offences cannot be inferred.
13. It is relevant to note that when any inspection or enquiry or investigation is required with regard to the affairs of the company, a separate proceedings are contemplated under the Companies Act 2013. Chapter XIV deals with enquiry, inspection and investigation. Section 206 of the Companies Act deals with the power to call for information, inspect books and conduct enquiries on the basis of the information received by the Registrar. On such investigation, if it is found that the business of a company is being carried for fraudulent or unlawful purpose or not in compliance with the provisions of the Act or if the grievances of investors are not being addressed every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable for fraud in the manner as provided under section 447. Similarly, apart from the registrar, the Central Government may also authorize any statutory authority to carry out the inspection of books of accounts of a company or class of companies as per clause 6 of Section 206 of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 207 of the Companies Act deals with conduct of inspection and enquiry. Section 208 contemplates further investigation on the basis of the recommendation made by the Registrar or Inspector.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 Section 210 deals with investigation of the affairs of the company where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary to inspect into the affairs of the company and may Order investigation into the affairs of the company. Section 211 deals with establishment of Serious Fraud Investigation Office. Section 212 deals with investigation into the affairs of the company by serious fraud investigation office. Sub Section 6 of section 212 reads as follows :
“(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 1[offence covered under section 447] of this Act shall be cognizable and no person accused of any offence under those sections shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless?
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs:
Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence referred to this sub~section except upon a complaint in writing made by?-
(i) the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office; or
(ii)any officer of the Central Government authorised, by a general or special order in writing in this behalf by that Government.” Sub section 6 of Section 212 makes it very clear that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 offence covered under section 447 of the Companies Act shall be cognizable in nature. The second proviso of the above section makes it clear that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence referred to this Sub~section except upon a complaint inwriting made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office or any office of the Central Government authorized by a general or special Order in writing in this behalf by that Government in this regard.
Therefore, to maintain the prosecution for the offence of fraud, a complaint ought to have been made by either by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office or any office of the Central Government authorized by a general or special Order by the Government. To find out the irregularities of the fraudulent activities only, Chapter XIV has been specifically made in the Companies Act.
14. It is also relevant to note that even in mismanagement, oppression, complaint by any of the minority shareholders, the remedy lies under section 241 of the Companies Act for oppression or mismanagement. Only if the Tribunal gives any finding that there are fraudulent activities and fraud has been committed by any person, give cause of action to proceed under section 447 of the Companies Act. Chapter XIV and XVI of the Companies Act are fact finding procedures.
15. Therefore, except holding that the filing of the Form is defective it is not the finding of the Registrar of Companies, that act of the company was fraudulent. Therefore, when there is not such factual finding has been recorded with regard to the affairs of the company as to the fraud, merely on the basis of a private complaint, the person cannot be prosecuted. Therefore, the offence under Section 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. also would not be attracted. It is also to be noted that similar set of allegations was pressed into service earlier in Cr.No.27 of 2021 against 7 persons, the FIR was stayed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3636 of 2021. Thereafter, a private complaint was filed implicating https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 another 4 accused with same set of allegations which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this Court hold that the entire private complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is also relevant to note that the contention of the defacto complainant to de-register his name on the similar set of grounds before National Company Law Board was also got dismissed. In such a view of the matter, continuing the prosecution on the basis of the private complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.220 of 2021 is quashed.
10. When this Court quashed the impugned private complaint as against A1 and A9, the petitioner who is a Charted Accountant arrayed as A10 is also entitled for the same benefit. Accordingly, the complaint in C.C.No.220 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu is hereby quashed. Insofar as the impugned FIR in Crime No.27 of 2021 is concerned, it has been lodged for the very same set of allegations as alleged in the private complaint in C.C.No.220 of 2021. Therefore, the impugned FIR cannot be sustained as against all the petitioners and it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the complaint in Crime No.27 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent in Crl.O.P.Nos.5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 is hereby quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021
11. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.08.2022 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/19 Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn To
1. The Inspector of Police, Kelampakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram.
2. The Sub- Inspector of Police, Kelambakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.Nos.20360, 5316, 9745, 3636 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.11075 and 6034 of 2021 30.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/19