9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he prima facie materials are available to proceed the case against the petitioner. At this stage, if there is a strong suspicion is available against the accused, the Court cannot conduct roving enquiry and the Court can only look into the materials available on records. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has also comes to the conclusion that prima facie materials are available. The allegations shown in the charge sheet and from other documents produced with police report under Section 173 Cr.PC there are materials available to proceed the case against this petitioner. This Court finds there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. The criminal revision stands dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt by an order dated 06.10.2015, partly allowed the revision and remitted back the matter before the trial Court for reconsideration. Though, the Special Court did not have jurisdiction and accordingly by an Order dated 16.10.2015, the case has been transferred to this Court, the petitioner was summoned by the trial Court to appear on 12.12.2015. Under Such Circumstances, the petitioner filed discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.PC in Crl.MP.No.24 of 2016 raising various grounds. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the application filed for discharge on 15.02.2016. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision to set aside the order dated 15.02.2016 made in Crl.MP.No.24 of 2016 in CC.No.4066 of 2016 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. 5. The respondent has filed counter stating that the petitioner/A3 filed the present revision against the order dated 15.02.2016 made in Crl. MP. No.24 of 2016 in CC.No.4066 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. The case in RC.4/S/2012/CBI/SCB/Chennai was registered by the respondent on 30.04.2012, based on the complaint give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Branch Manager. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.PC in Crl.MP.No.24 of 2016, the trial Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner on 15.02.2016. Aggrieved with the said order the petitioner is before this Court. Hence, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the revision. 8. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the available records. 9. The contention of the revision petitioner is that she was only a Director in name and not in-charge and responsible for the business of A1 company and she has not played any role in administrative or management affairs of A1 company. There is no allegation of misrepresentation by the petitioner, at any point of time, no offence under Section 420 IPC can be made out. LW19/Atul Mathur has also signed the documents in the capacity of Director, but he was not implicated as accused. The petitioner is the wife of A2 has been falsely implicated in this case, further, the bank official/A4 filed quash petition before this Court, this Court let out A4 from the case. The basis of conspiracy due to exoneration of bank official does not exist today. The petitioner has not signed the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated about the fabrication of forged documents. On perusal of Document No.10, Memorandum of Association and Articles of Associations would clearly shows that A2 and A3 are the only Directors of A1/Company. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and the documents available before it, rightly dismissed the discharge application filed by the petitioner and there is no reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the revision. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from the statement of the prosecution witnesses LW3, LW19 and LW21, the petitioner had not participated in the day to day affairs of the A1 Company. The petitioner is the Director of M/s. Fountain Head Communication Pvt Ltd and taking care of its day today activities and not parse in charge and responsible for the conduct of M/s. Eventus Integrated management Pvt Ltd, all the signatures of the petitioner found in different documents are those signatures which have been filed with the Registrar of Companies. The witnesses would say that the petitioner is only in-charge of M/s. Fountainhead Communication and not directly responsible for the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has adopted pick and choose method is not acceptable one. Further, this Court discharged A4/Naryanan from the charges, for the reason that he has no connivance with the petitioner and her husband, discharging A4 from the charges will not in anyway helpful to the petitioner's case. On any angle, the petitioner cannot be relieved from the case, the prosecution has sufficient materials from the complaint to the charge sheet and other material evidences about the active involvement of the accused, hence the revision is liable to be dismissed. 16. On perusal of records, the admitted facts are that A2 and A3 are shown as Directors of A1 Company. According to the revision petitioner she has been shown has name lender of the Company, she has not been actively participating in the day to day affairs of the A1 company and she is looking after the affairs of M/s. Fountainhead Communication Pvt Ltd and her husband A2 only is looking after the day to day affairs of A1 Company. The petitioner cannot be vicariously liable for the action done by her husband. The statement of the witnesses also do not reveal anything about the involvement of the petitioner in the A1 Company. On the other h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
