M/S. Gati Limited v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE Crl.O.P.[MD]No.10612 of 2018 M/s Gati Limited Rep by its Senior Executive, M.Sudalaiyandi Having Regd. Office, At Plot No.20, Survey No.12, Kothaguda, Kodapur, Hyderabad-500 084.
: Petitioner Vs.
1.State represented by Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.364 of 2017) 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District Crime Branch, Tuticorin.
3.The Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Rep. By its Chairman, Having its Corporate Office at No.57, V.E.Road, Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu, India-628 002.
4.The Superintendent of Police, The Central Bureau of Investigation, (C.B.I.) Banking Securities & Fraud Cell, No.36, Bellary Road, 2nd Floor, CBI Complex, Bangalore 560 032.
: Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to withdraw the case in Cr.No.364 of 2017 pending on the file of the first and second respondent police and transfer the case to the 4th respondent herein, the Central Bureau of Investigation. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ravikumar For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.V.Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor For R-3 : Mr.A.R.M.Ramesh
ORDER
The present petition is filed seeking transfer of investigation in Crime No.364 of 2017, now pending before the first respondent.
2. On 06.03.2019, when this matter came up before this Court, the following submissions were made and for repeating the same, this Court reproduces the said facts:- "The petitioner, who is a facilitator / service provider for import and export of consignments through shipment, has entered into a contract with the accused and he has a long term business relationship with the accused. He had requested the accused to provide bank guarantee with the third respondent / Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. Later, the petitioner discovered that the bank guarantee given by the accused, were fabricated documents. On coming to know the same, the petitioner had preferred a complaint before the first respondent police, based on which, a case in Crime No.364 of 2017 was registered.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even the case was initially not registered and the petitioner had to move this Court to have the case register vide Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14756 of 2017 and only thereafter, complaint came to be registered. Thereafter, the accused moved this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.288 of 2017 for anticipatory bail and the same came to be dismissed. Challenging the same, the accused filed SLP (Crl) No.15986 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that too came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the accused had again filed another petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9348 of 2018 and that came to be allowed with certain conditions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No.6677 of 2018 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order stay of order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9348 of 2018. While allegations against the accused is serious one, the first respondent / Investigating Agency has not arrested the accused yet."
3. Toady, Miss.T.Seeni Syed Amma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she would be entering appearance for the accused persons in this case.
4. As this Court was about to hear the petitioner, the learned counsel has also trusted the copy of the order in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9348 of 2018 filed by the accused for anticipatory bail and the order passed therein. Even though the reference is made to this order, in the present petition the copy of the order is not available in the typed set of papers. Therefore, this Court chose to receive the said order.
5. Apart from the aspect of anticipatory bail sought by the accused, the order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9348 of 2018 also deals with other aspects, which are available in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said
order, which reads thus:- "6. This Court has to observe that there are clear materials indicating that the forges bank guarantees were furnished by the petitioner. This is the case in which the police cannot file a negatie report. The respondent police is directed to file the final report in Crime No.364 of 2017 before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent police shall file a compliance report on or before 20.09.2018 in this regard and the said compliance report shall be placed before me. This time line shall be strictly adhered to. The respondent police shall not ask for any extension of time for reason whatsoever.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he shall not challenge the order passed by this Court. The Jurisdictional Magistrate shall take the final report on file forthwith, without any delay. The trial Court shall conclude the entire trial proceedings within a period of three months thereafter. The concerned trial Magistrate is also directed to file a compliance report before the registry. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to monitor that the time lines stipulated in this order are strictly adhered to."
6. Notwithstanding what has stated in paragraph 7 of the aforesaid order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9348 of 2018, the petitioner herein, who is the complainant in this case, had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl) No.667 of 2018, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stayed the order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9348 of 2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed only the order granting anticipatory bail but not the rest.
7. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Agency has understood this order as a total stay of the ongoing investigation.
8. The order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9348 of 2018 has two parts, the first part deals with the anticipatory bail and the other part deals with providing time schedule for completion of the trial. The completion of the investigation is also therefore forms part of the said order, and when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the matter, in the opinion of this Court, that will also become the subject matter and will come under the purview of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Propriety requires that this Court does not interfere with the present status quo. When the matter is in the seizin of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for the present, this Court holds that this petition is premature and hence needs to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court for the same relief, if so required and if circumstance
continues to be exists at the appropriate time subject to the outcome of the S.L.P.(Crl) No.667 of 2018.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-) To 1.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District Crime Branch, Tuticorin.
3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Having its Corporate Office at No.57, V.E.Road, Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu, India-628 002.
4.The Superintendent of Police, The Central Bureau of Investigation, (C.B.I.) Banking Securities & Fraud Cell, No.36, Bellary Road, 2nd Floor, CBI Complex, Bangalore 560 032.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+2cc to Mr.J.Ravikumar, Advocate, SR.No.57325 Crl.O.P.[MD]No.10612 of 2018 27.03.2019 SP/10.04.2019/ 4P/8C