Smt.Vijayakumari Prasad v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 06.11.2015 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice A.SELVAM Crl. R.C.No.1500 of 2012 Vijayakumari Prasad .. Petitioner/Accused No.2 vs.

State rep.by The Inspector of Police SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai R.C.MA 1 2009 A0069 .. Respondent/complainant Revision under Sections 397 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records on the file of learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in C.C.No.8 of 2011 and to set aside the order of the lower court in Crl.M.P.No.4008 of 2011 and discharge the petitioner/accused No.2 from the alleged offences.

For petitioner : Mr.A.V.Somasundaram for M/s.Lakshmipriya Associates For respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Spl.Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been directed against the dismissal order dated 19th day of October, 2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4008 of 2011 in C.C.No.8 of 2011 by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.

2. The revision petitioner, as petitioner, has filed Crl.M.P.No.4008 of 2011 in C.C.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the court below under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to discharge her form the proceedings of C.C.No.8 of 2011, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole accused.

3. It is averred in the petition that the respondent has conducted investigation on the basis of the alleged complaint and ultimately filed a final report under section 109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further it is averred in the petition that the petitioner has had no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences and she has been falsely implicated and further she is having own source of income and under the said circumstances, the petition in Crl.M.P.No.4008 of 2011 has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

4. The court below, after considering the divergent contentions raised on either side, has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order passed by the court below, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed at the instance of the petitioner as criminal revision petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been arrayed as second accused in Calendar Case No.8 of 2011 and in fact, no witnesses have spoken about the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the offences punishable under section 109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein, but the Court below, without considering the nature of the averments made in the petition and also contentions put forth on her side, has erroneously dismissed the petition and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has contended that in C.C.No.8 of 2011, totally 38 witnesses have been examined and the matter is pending for cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. Under such circumstances, the relief sought in Crl.M.P.No.4008 of 2001 cannot be granted.

7. The only contention put forth on the side of the revision petitioner is that none of the prosecution witnesses have spoken about the involvement of the revision petitioner in the crime.

8. It is seen from the records that in C.C.No.8 of 2011, 38 Prosecution Witnesses have been examined in full and the Investigating Officer has been examined in chief. Considering the stage of C.C.No.8 of 2011 and also considering the nature of the relief sought in Crl.M.P.No.4008 of 2011, this Court is of

the view that the dismissal order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and further if there is no evidence on the side of the prosecution with regard to alleged involvement of the revision petitioner in the crime, the same can be put forth before the trial court. Therefore, viewing from any angle, this Criminal Revision Case deserves to be dismissed. In fine, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The dismissal order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4008 of 2011 in C.C.No.8 of 2011 by the court below is confirmed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai

2. The Inspector of Police SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai Crl.R.C.No.1500 of 2012 sr[co] srg 23/11/2015