Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/12229/2015allowed

The Staffs, Muthoot Fincorp v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

2016-04-12Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.04.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.12229 and 12230 of 2015 The Staffs Muthoot Fincorp Ltd., Usilampatti Branch Madurai District Rep. by their Senior Area Manager and Authorised Signatory M.Raju ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.12229/2015 The Proprietor Muthoot Fincorp Ltd Usilampatti Branch Usilampatti Madurai District (As shown in the summons, there is no Proprietor for the Muthoot Fincorp Ltd Usilampatti Branch, Usilampatti) The Area Manager and Authorised Signatory Muthoot Fincorp Ltd Usilampatti Branch Rep. by M.Raju ... Petitioner Crl.O.P.(MD0 No.12230/2015 -vsThe Sub Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Usilampatti Madurai District.

Crime No.328 of 2014 ... Respondent in both petitions Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in Summons dated 13.11.2014 issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Usilampatti under Form 91(2) and Section 94 of Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Pethurajesh For Respondents : Mrs.S.Prabha for R1 Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr.R.Maheswaran for impleading petitioner Mr.V.Ganesh for impleading petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to quash the summons dated 13.11.2014 issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Usilampatti under Form 91(2) and Section 94 of Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent and the learned counsels for the impleading petitioner.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners are accused in Crime No.328 of 2014, that has been registered by the respondent police on 18.10.2014 for offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC on the complaint given by one Chinnaraja. During the course of investigation, the respondent police have issued summons under Sections 91 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners herein for production of certain documents in their custody.

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court, in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal reported in AIR 1965 SC 1251, Section 94 (presently 91) Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked as against the accused. On the short point, these petitions are allowed and the summons are quashed. However, that cannot prevent the police officers from taking steps in accordance with law for searching and seizing the documents that are required for investigation. The respondent police is directed to proceed in accordance with law. Consequently, M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2015 and Crl.M.P.No.2968 of 2016 and 2969 of 2016 are dismissed.

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

1. The Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Usilampatti

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+ 1 CC TO M/S.P.PETHU RAJESH, ADVOCATE IN SR NO. 20551/16 + 1 CC TO M/S.MAGESHWARAN, ADVOCATE IN SR NO. 20857/16 RR TE/SKS-RR/ : 20/04/2016 : 2P/6C Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.12229 and 12230 of 2015 12.04.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/