Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. After registration of FIR in Crime No. 2 of 2016, the 5th respondent did not complete the investigation as such, the petitioner again filed a petition for direction in Crl.O.P.No.22787 of 2018 before this Court. This Court directed the 5th respondent to complete the investigation and file final report within a period of two months. Therefore, the 5th respondent filed a final report on 26.12.2018 only against the said N.J.Subramaniam and deleted the respondents 1 to 4 herein and served the RCS notice to the petitioner in so far as the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondents 1 to 4 are concerned. On receipt of the same, the petitioner filed a protest petition in C.M.P.No.337 of 2019 and also filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the protest petition in C.M.P.No.337 of 2019. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.967 of 2019 and the same was allowed by order dated 13.11.2019. This Court concluded that all the accused persons have committed the offence under Sections 120B, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with 511 of IPC and directed to take cognizance as against all the accused persons for the said offences and issued summons to the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 to 4 herein filed SLP(Cr) No.354 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the same was dismissed by order dated 24.01.2020 with an observation that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate will hear the respondents 1 to 4 also on protest petition and take a decision on the point of issuing process or not.

6. In pursuant to the said direction, the protest petition in C.M.P.No.337 of 2019 has been taken on file for hearing. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondents 1 to 4 appeared before the learned Magistrate Court and also filed a petition in C.M.P.No.8274 of 2022 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C to issue summons to cause production of the enquiry report pertaining to the complaint lodged by one of the accused made to the Registrar(Vigilance), High Court, Madras wherein an enquiry had been conducted by the ADSP-Vigilance Cell(Judicial), Coimbatore and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed by the complainant.

8. Per contra, Mr.Ar.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had directed the learned Magistrate to hear the respondents 1 to 4 in the protest petition and take a decision on the point of issuing process or not. Infact, the learned Magistrate had passed docket order thereby, directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to clarify and get suitable order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court to proceed further since already the Trial Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis had taken cognizance on 18.12.2019 and the protest petition is disposed of whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed an order only on 24.01.2020. It was challenged before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.21854 of 2021 to set aside the docket order and this Court by order dated 16.03.2022 had directed the trial Court to hear the protest petition after hearing the respondents 1 to 4 herein. While pending enquiry in the protest petition, the respondents 1 to 4 filed a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C to cause production of documents pertaining to the complaint of one of the accused submitted to the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras. He lodged a complaint that certified copy of the alleged agreement for sale dated 15.03.2006 furnished by the competent Court is a fabricated one. Therefore, the enquiry report is a vital document for taking cognizance as against the respondents 1 to 4 herein. It becomes necessary that the findings of the Vigilance Authorities in respect of the said document are to be summoned for proper appreciation of the case on hand in the protest petition. In support of his contentions, he also relied upon the judgment reported in (2018) 2 SCC 93 in the case of Nitya Dharmananda Alias K.Lenin and another Vs Gopal Sheelum Reddy and another. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the Court below had rightly allowed the petition.

22. In view of the above, the trial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondents 1 to 4 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C erroneously as they cannot invoke the provision under Section 91 of Cr.P.C at pre- cognizance stage. Hence, under these circumstances, the order passed by the Trial Court is required to be interfered by this Court.

23. Accordingly, the order passed in C.M.P.No.8274 of 2022 in CMP.No.337 of 2019 in CC.No.21480 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Coimbatore dated 10.06.2022 is set aside. However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose the protest petition in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P.No.337 of 2019 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.