Madras High Court
R.Subramanian vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 3 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MAD 2391
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 10.03.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.06.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 and
Crl.M.P.No.2580 of 2020
R.Subramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Central Bureau of Investigation,
(BS & FC), Bangalore,
Rep. by its Inspector of Police,
No.36, Bellary Rd, KGH Layout, Ganganagar,
Bengaluru,
Karnataka 560 032.
2.Shri.V.Sreedharan
General Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Zonal Office, Baroda Pride, 3rd Floor,
Luz Church Rd, Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.9635 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Subramanian
Party-in-Person
For Respondents : Mr.K.Srinivasan
Special Public Prosecutor
for CBI Cases
*****
1/26
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020
ORDER
The petitioner/A1 in C.C.No.9635 of 2014, which is pending trial on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai for the offence under Sections 420 of IPC, has filed this quash petition.
2.The brief facts of the case is that the 1st respondent registered a case on 26.07.2013 on a complaint dated 18.06.2016 from the General Manager of Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office, Baroda Pride, Mylapore/2nd respondent. The case was registered as RC 4(E)/2013-CBI/BS & FC/Bangalore under Section 120-B r/w 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner/R.Subramanian/A1, Managing Director of M/s.Subhiksha Trading Services Limited, K.P.Vairavan/A-2, the then Assistant General Manager and Branch Head, Bank of Baroda, Corporate Financial Services Branch, Chennai and M/s.Subhiksh Trading Services Limited/A3.
3.M/s.Subhiksh Trading Services Limited (M/s.STSL) was engaged in organized retailing by establishing chain stores and selling products in FMCG, 2/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 Pharma, Groceries, fruits, vegetables apart from seasonal retail business, Telecom products etc. M/s.STSL was carrying on the business of store keepers in all the branches. The petitioner as a Managing Director, was actively taking part in day to day activities of the company. The company was in the process of expanding its business from the year 2006 onwards and proposed to establish 1600 outlets/stores across the country. The petitioner had availed eleven loans from Private Sector banks and two loans from nationalized banks viz., Bank of Baroda and Bank of India. The petitioner was the only active Director who was handling the day to day affairs of the company. On 19.11.2007 the company passed resolution to avail credit facilities sanctioned by Bank of Baroda, CFS Branch Chennai and to execute necessary loan security documents by the petitioner and one K.Balasubramanian, DGM of the company. It was also resolved to request M/s.Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Limited to execute corporate guarantee for the loan. The company had submitted an application on 22.05.2007 to Bank of Baroda, CFS Branch, Chennai requesting for CC limit of Rs.25 crores and Term Loan of Rs.50 crores with the project report to establish stores out of the loan, Rs.25 crores working capital was to take over the existing loan from Axis Bank Limited.
3/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020
4.The company proposed to implement their expansion programme under phase-III, covering western UP, western Maharashtra, Pune, Nagpur, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh) and phase-IV, covering states of Kerala and West Bengal at a total cost of Rs.165 crores which was proposed to be met out by bank finance of Rs.80 crores and equity of Rs.80 crores by way of rights issue and balance Rs.5 crores through internal accruals. Out of the Term Loan requirement of Rs.80 crores for the said proposed expansion, the company had already secured sanction of Term Loan Rs.30 crores from ABN Amro Bank and the balance Rs.50 crores of Term Loan was requested by the company from the Bank of Baroda.
5.The company was bound by the sanction condition to provide corporate guarantee of M/s.Vishwapriya Financial Services & Securities Limited for the loan availed, but intentionally failed to provide the same. The M/s.STSL had availed another term loan of Rs.75 crores from ICICI Bank, Chennai for the same expansion programmee for phase-III and phase-IV in August/September 2007. The petitioner/Managing Director of M/s.STSL had willfully concealed the sanction of Rs.75 crores by ICICI Bank during sanction of Term Loan of Rs.50 crores from Bank of Baroda. M/s.STSL also 4/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 violated the terms and conditions of sanction by availing working capital facilities of Rs.35 crores from Development Credit Bank, Rs.25 crores from Barclays Bank, Rs.30 crores from Indusland Bank and Rs.3 crores from Federal Bank which were availed without prior approval from Bank of Baroda.
6.The term loan of Rs.50 crores was released by Bank of Baroda, CFS Branch, Chennai based on the request of the company, but intentionally violating the sanction condition, M/s.STSL did not submit end use certificate of Chartered Accountant in respect of term loan of Rs.15 crores disbursed on 15.02.2008 towards phase-IV of expansion programme. The company submitted Chartered Accountant Certificate dated 27.02.2008 issued by M/s.Sridahr & Company, Chennai certifying implementation of phase-V at a cost of Rs.136.40 crores which was based on false information given by M/s.STSL to the Chartered Accountants.
7.Further it was found that the stores ought to have been established during phase IV of expansion programmee in Kerala and Kolkata but they were not established and that in most of the places no super martets were 5/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 established and in few instances only mobile stores were established. The company falsely and dishonestly claimed to have invested Rs.9.61 crores towards establishment of 37 stores in Kolkata, knowing fully well that very few stores, that too in skeleton form were opened which involved much less investment and is not as projected to the Bank.
8.Further the petitioner availed the term loan of Rs.50 crores stating that the same would be utilized for establishment of stores in phase-IV and V and the list of stores to be established in phase IV and V. During the investigation it was found that in 23 out of 29 places, the stores were not being established. Similarly, out of 37 in Kolkata, 15 stores were not established and the investment made in some of the stores in phase-V was not more than Rs.7-10 lakhs per store, while the company projected the investment as Rs.30-35 lakhs per store. The petitioner with the dishonest intention to cheat the bank did not comply with the sanction conditions, such as submission of Chartered Accountant certificate in time to ascertain the end use, stocks statements to ascertain the business activities of the compnay, status of the ongoing expansion programme such as quarterly report thereby intentionally kept the bank in dark about utilizations of funds and utilized the loan funds for the 6/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 purposes other than for which it was sanctioned and thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank and dishonestly and with deceitful means diverted the funds and failed to repay the loan amount which resulted in the account becoming NPA, thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank to the extent of Rs.77.39 crores as on 31.03.2009.
9.It is also found that M/s.STSL had also availed huge credit facilities from various other banks to the extent of Rs.700 crores approximately. Hence, a case came to be registered, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner R.Subramanian/A1, Managing Director of M/s.Subhiksha Trading Services Limited and M/s.Subhiksh Trading Services Limited/A2. The trial Court had taken the case on file on 13.08.2014 as C.C.No.9365 of 2014 against which the present quash petition.
10.The contention of the petitioner is that the trial Court had taken cognizance of the case is wholly without application of mind and no reasoned order has been passed. It is a settled principle of law that before issuing of summon under Section 204 of Cr.P.C, a speaking or reasoned order to be recorded. Further, the trial Court failed to apply its mind, there was delay of 7/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 five years in lodging the compliant by the 2nd respondent, wherein admittedly the disbursement of the loan were made before May 2008. It is well settled law that for offence of cheating there must be intention of deception at the time of inception of the transaction. In this case, M/s.STSL was promptly making payment till December 2008 and thereafter the loan could not be repaid, due to closure of business. Default of repayment of loan or breach of contract would be a civil wrong and would not amount to criminal act.
11.He further submitted that on reading the complaint it is seen that there is no specific role of the petitioner in the transactions. The petitioner as head of the company with 15,000 employees, each of them were given designated work. The petitioner cannot be charged merely for the reason that he being Managing Director of M/s.STSL is criminally liable, such concept of vicarious liability cannot be fastened for offence under Section 420 IPC. The trial Court failed to note that the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent was belated and the petitioner has filed a defamation case against the 2nd respondent in C.C.No.2557 of 2013 and summons were sent to the bank Chairman for appearance on 19.07.2013. Earlier to it, there have been exchange of notice in this regard on 27.07.2012. Further, to spite vengeance 8/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 the complaint dated 18.06.2013 was lodged by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. Earlier to this complaint, the petitioner was summoned by the 1st respondent/CBI to attend enquiry on the complaint of the bank for preliminary enquiry in No.PE.1(E)/2012-CBI/BS&FC/BLR. The petitioner received the summons dated 05.11.2012 and 07.11.2012. Thereafter, petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent submitted his reply and sent written reply through registered post on 30.11.2012. The petitioner by letter dated 11.10.2013 sought for closure report of the preliminary enquiry, the 1st respondent by reply dated 28.10.2013 informed preliminary enquiry was converted into a regular case vide RC 4(E)/2013-CBI/BS & FC/Bangalore. The petitioner had sent another communication dated 04.07.2013 reiterating his earlier request, the 1st respondent by communication dated 21.11.2013 replied that a regular case has been registered on a complaint from the Bank of Baroda dated 18.06.2013 and the regular case is under active investigation. Thereafter the petitioner was again summoned in connection with the investigation of the regular case on 06.01.2014.
12.The further submitted that he had filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.797 of 2014 seeking for quashment of the FIR in RC 4(E)/2013- 9/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 CBI/BS & FC/Bangalore, one of the ground therein was that the 2nd respondent already filed a complaint in the year 2012, preliminary enquiry conducted and latter, preliminary enquiry was closed. Thereafter, a second complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent on 18.06.2013 at the instance of the 1st respondent, which is barred under law. Further the 2nd respondent had already initiated proceedings against the petitioner before the DRT, Chennai for recovery of the loan amounts.
13.The petitioner further submitted that the 1st respondent had not denied the receipt of earlier complaint in the year 2012 and about conducting of preliminary enquriy and closing the same, thereafter, the 1 st respondent received the second complaint dated 18.06.2013. During the pendency of the proceedings in Crl.O.P.No.797 of 2014, charge sheet was taken on file on 13.08.2014. Further, this Court by order dated 06.06.2017 taking note of collateral proceedings, directed the trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law and dismissed the quash petition on 24.11.2016. Thus the registration of FIR and consequent filing of the charge sheet based on the second complaint of the 2nd respondent is bad in law. 10/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020
14.The petitioner further submitted that for offence of cheating there should be mensrea and in this case, there is no mensrea attributed against the petitioner. The respondent presented the final report with documents running thousand pages, it was not possible for the trial Court to apply its mind and taken the case on file within a short time, the cognizance was taken mechanically without perusal of the records and application of mind. The petitioner's name was merely tagged in the final report along with M/s.STSL. In the second complaint as well in the final report, there is no mention about the earlier complaint of the year 2012. The 1st respondent admitted that earlier there was a complaint received from the 2nd respondent and in the guise of preliminary enquiry, investigation was conducted extensively and thereafter the report was shared with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent had given a fresh complaint on 18.06.2013 and a final report came to be filed would itself go to show the investigation is against all principles of fair investigation. Thus in this case the general principles that the complainant cannot be the investigating officer would apply. The trial Court failed to note that the 1st respondent acted as a private investigator for the 2nd respondent in conducting preliminary enquiry, furnishing the report and thereafter, enabled the 2nd respondent to file a second complaint.
11/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020
15.The petitioner further submitted that the investigation must be impartial, fair and open. The original complaint has been suppressed and not mentioned in the second complaint. In the first complaint there was no complaint against the public servant. In the second complaint the public servant's name was included and finally while filing the charge sheet his name was deleted.
16.Further, in the final report there is no mention about the preliminary enquiry and no reason was given for stopping the preliminary enquiry. It is well settled principle that the proceedings cannot continue on a tainted complaint obtained in illegal manner. The above case came to be filed only for the reason that there was default in repayment of loan. It is admitted that the loans were repaid up to 31.12.2008 and from 31.01.2009, the company stopped its operation and hence, the accounts became NPA. The petitioner had signed the documents for loan as Managing Director of STSL. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against him.
17.In order to substantiate his arguments, the petitioner had relied upon the following citations:-
12/26
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020
1.Babubai Versus State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2010 (12) SCC 254, in which it is held that two FIR in respect of same transaction – subsequent to registration of an FIR, any further complaint for same transaction not permissible.
2.Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah Versus CBI and Ors. reported in 2013 (6) SCC 348, in which it is held that second FIR for the same transaction impermissible.
3.H.N.Rishbud and Inder Singh Versus State of Delhi reported in AIR 1955 SC 196, in which it is held that illegality in investigation.
4.Navinchandra N Majitha Versus State of Meghalaya and Ors.
reported in 2000 (8) SCC 323, in which it is held that the investigation has to be totally extricated from any extraneous influence.
5.Upkar Singh Versus Ved Prakash and ors. reported in 2000 (13) SCC 292, in which it is held that two FIRs – second complaint in regard to same incident filed as a counter complaint.
13/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020
6.Shiv Shankar Singh Versus State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2013 (1) SCC 130, in which it is held that second protest petition – permissibility.
7.State Inspector of Police, Vishakapattinam Versus Surya Sankaram Karri reported in 2006 (7) SCC 172, in which it is held that investigation to be carried out not only from the stand of the prosecution, but also the defence.
8.Mohan lal Versus State of Punjab reported in 2013 (17) SCC 627, in which it is held that Informant and the investigator must not be the same person.
9.Sidharta Vashist @ Manu Sharma Versus State (NCT Delhi) reported in SCC Online Crl. Appeal 179 of 2007, in which it is held that the investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance to the basic rule of law.
10.Anju Chaudry Versus State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2013 (6) SCC 384, in which it is held that the second FIR in respect of same 14/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 offence/incident forming part of same transaction as contained in first FIR – akin to double jeopardy.
11.Lalitha Kumari Versus Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1, in which it is held that Preliminary enquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
12.Prof.R.K.Vijayasarathy and another Versus Sudha Seetharam and another reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 208, in which it is held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised with care.
13.Sathish Chandra Rathan lal shah Versus State of Gujarat and others reported in 2019(9) SCC 148, in which it is held that mere breach of promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 without there being clear case of entrustment.
14.All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited Versus Dhanesh Bhararmal Jain and another reported in 2007 (14) SCC 776, in which it is 15/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 held that criminal proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.
15.Mahadev Prasad Versus State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1954 SC 724, in which it is held that civil liability will not eschew criminal liability.
16.Vesa Holding Private Limited and others Versus State of Kerala and others reported in 2015 (8) SCC 293, in which it is held that Civil remedy available itself cannot be ground to quash criminal proceedings.
17.Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others Versus State of Bihar and others reported in 2000 (4) SCC 168, in which it is held that Breach of contract and offence of cheating is a fine one.
18.Hira lal Hari Lal Bhagavathi Versus CBI, New Delhi reported in 2003 (5) SCC 257, in which it is held that in penal law there is no vicarious liability unless provided in the statue.
16/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020
19.Sunil Bharathi Mittal Versus CBI reported in 2015(4) SCC 609. in which it is held that when company is accused, its Directors, held, can be roped in only if (a) there is sufficient incriminating evidence against them coupled with criminal intent or (b) the statutory regime attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability.
18.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases for the respondents submitted that in the year 2012, a complaint was received from the 2nd respondent. Since it was a commercial transaction involving scrutinizing of various documents over a period of time with the limited documents submitted, a preliminary enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was called for enquiry and he had also sent a written reply. Since voluminous documents were to be verified and scrutinized to find out the genuineness of the transactions, complicity of the bank officials and others, it took considerable time. During the preliminary enquiry, queries were made with the 2nd respondent as well. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent had given a detailed complaint of the involvement of the petitioner, his company and also about the bank officials and other unknown persons. Thereafter FIR came to be registered. Holding of preliminary enqiury is a procedure known to law. In 17/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 the case of Lalitha Kumari it is clearly held that preliminary enquiry has to be conducted for offences of commercial nature. Since voluminous transactions and traces of money to various accounts to be tracked, the genuineness of the beneficiaries are to be verified and hence, the preliminary enquiry took some time. Simultaneously, the bank had also conducted internal examination on the accounts of the petitioner, thereafter gave a complaint naming the bank officials as well. The CBI manual also prescribes preliminary enquiry in cases of such nature and magnitude.
19.The Hon'ble Apex Court have time and again held that two FIR for the same offence and transaction is not permissible. In this case, admittedly only one FIR came to be registered in RC 4(E)/2013-CBI/BS & FC/Bangalore. Earlier it was only a preliminary enquiry which is permissible in law and thereafter FIR was registered on the complaint dated 18.06.2013 and after detailed enquiry, examination of witnesses, collection of voluminous documents, the complicity of the petitioner in defrauding two public sector banks as well as several private banks to the tune of several hundred crores came to light.
18/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020
20.The petitioner in a deceitful manner had siphoned out huge sum of public money. Further the petitioner had produced forged Chartered Accountants certificates and submitted statement of accounts with false particulars. The physical verification of the showrooms in Kerala, Kolkatta and other places revealed that the petitioner had given false particulars and shown utilization of loan amount without incurring any expenses. The petitioner had usurped the money through front companies and thereby cheated the bank.
21.The petitioner is in the habit of filing one petition or other. The petitioner earlier filed a petition seeking to quash the FIR and thereafter he had filed a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C calling for the preliminary enqiury report, even before the charges could be framed. The petitioner had been successfully dragging and protracting the case till date and not allowed the trial Court to frame the charges against him. The petitioner had filed three petitions under Section 91 Cr.P.C with the same prayer. In the discharge petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.752 of 2016, the Public Prosecutor in the lower Court filed counter during May 2016 and a rejoinder was also filed. Thereafter, citing one reason or other the petitioner had 19/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 successfully dragged on the proceedings. Now the petitioner had filed second discharge petition in Crl.M.P.NO.349 of 2020 on 05.02.2020 and successfully stalled the progress of case, not allowing the trial Court to frame charges and proceed with the trial.
22.Thus the petitioner has been successfully protracting the proceedings before the trial Court from the year 2014, the charges were not allowed to be framed. Investigation had clearly revealed the complicity of the petitioner in commission of offence and there are witnesses and documents annexed in the charge sheet to prove that the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating.
23.Considering the rival submission and on perusal of the materials it is seen that in this case there is only one FIR in RC 4(E)/2013-CBI/BS & FC/Bangalore dated 26.07.2013, which was registered on the complaint of the 2nd respondent dated 18.06.2013. On receipt of the written complaint FIR came to be registered. The petitioner's reference to the preliminary enquiry in No.PE.1(E)/2012-CBI/BS&FC/BLR is of the year 2012. In the case of Lalitha Kumari Versus State of UP and ors., reported in 2014 2 SCC 1, the 20/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 Hon'ble Apex Court had held that preliminary enquiry is to be conducted in the cases of Commercial offences and the cases referred therein are only illustrations and not exhaustive. The relevant portion is extracted as follows:-
“120.6.As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.”
24.In this case, admittedly, M/s.Subicksha Trading Service Limited got more than 1600 branches and its operation spread pan India, wherein several voluminous documents were to be examined and the case is of much 21/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 magnitude that it had taken considerable time. Further in chapter IX of CBI manual, the procedure for conducting preliminary enquiry has been detailed. The 1st respondent Police following the CBI manual as well the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Lalitha Kumari Versus State of UP and ors., reported in 2014 2 SCC 1), on receipt of the complaint from the 2nd respondent had registered an FIR, conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet.
25.The contention of the petitioner that the preliminary enquiry was in the nature of investigation and the second complaint dated 18.06.2013 is not permissible in law, is a wrong understanding of law. The 2nd respondent admits the earlier preliminary enquiry. It is seen that simultaneously the bank had also conducted internal verification of M/s.STSL accounts, transaction and documents submitted, thereafter, lodged the complaint. Other than mentioning about earlier preliminary enquiry prior to the complaint, the petitioner is unable to point out any material to show that the investigation being tainted, biased, suffers from irregularities and conducted in malafidy exercise of power by 1st respondent causing serious prejudice and harassment to him.
22/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020
26.The citations relied upon by the petitioner are not relevant to the facts of the above case. The citations relied upon by the petitioner for the points that (i) two FIR are not permissible in the case of same transaction.
(ii)Further informant and the investigator must not be the same person.
(iii)Investigation should be judicious, fair and transparent. (iv)the breach of contract would not amount to cheat and (v)when civil remedy is available criminal case not to be proceeded.
27.In this case there is only one FIR the informant. The informant in this case is the General Manager of Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office, Baroda Pride, Mylapore and the investigation has been conducted by the respondent as statutory body. Further in this case the element of deception and criminality is available. The petitioner had suppressed the fact of earlier availment of loan from the defacto complainant Bank and failed to repay the same, thereby defrauded the funds through self and front companies of the petitioner and utilized the same other than the purpose for which the loan was obtained. The petitioner's thrust is that the entire investigation has been progressed on the second FIR which is on a misconception. In this case admittedly there is only one FIR and after investigation charge sheet has been 23/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 filed. Thus, the points raised by the petitioner are factual in aspect which has to be decided during trial.
28.In the given case there may be occasions of more than one complaint. What to be seen is that whether at all the complaints transformed into FIR and any investigation has commenced under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, as per Section 154 of Cr.P.C., the police officer is vested with the power to investigate cognizable offences and following chapter XII of Cr.P.C., thereafter, charge sheet has to be filed under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C.
29.In this case there is no registration of FIR earlier and no prior investigation. In this case on the complaint from the 2 nd respondent dated 18.06.2013, FIR in RC 4(E)/2013-CBI/BS & FC/Bangalore came to be registered. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as C.C.No.9635 of 2014. Hence, the contention of the petitioner does not merit consideration and this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, accordingly.
24/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020
30.Taking into consideration of the case is of the year 2014 and for the past six years even charges are yet not framed, the trial Court is directed to expedite and conclude the trail on a day to day basis. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.06.2020 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To
1.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, (BS & FC), Bangalore, No.36, Bellary Rd, KGH Layout, Ganganagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 032.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
25/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.O.P.No.4498 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.2580 of 2020 03.06.2020 26/26 http://www.judis.nic.in