DHAKSHAYINI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C. No.1087 of 2021 pending on the file of learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and to quash the same as against the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners are the accused 4 and 5. The first petitioner is employed as a Senior Technical Assistant at the office of the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras in the department of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. The second petitioner is working as a Cashier in the same office. Dr.Charulatha, who is the daughter of the defacto complainant is running a company by name M/s. Universal Security Services situated at No.11, Dhoksha Business Centre, Radha Tech Tower Street, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, OMR Thuraipakkam, Chennai. As she is residing at London with her husband, the management of M/s. Universal Security Services was taken care of her father, who is the de facto complainant herein. As the de facto complainant is aged 65 years, his elder daughter's brother-in-law Praveen Kumar was also assisting the de facto complainant and working in the said company. Dr.Charulatha would come occasionally to India to check the company's account. The transaction of the company is being done in the name of the company in account No.439011009538 at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Nungambakkam Branch. The salary of the employees will be credited in their respective bank account from the company's account.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither in the First Information Report nor in the statements of P.W.1 to 3, the names of these petitioners have been mentioned as accused; the petitioners are entitled to immunity from legal actions for any of the acts done by them in good faith during the course of their official work as per Sec. 635 (A) of Companies Act, 1956; the de facto complainant and the accused 1 to 3 have family quarrel among themselves and only because of that petitioners were roped into this; even without obtaining the previous sanction under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C., the charge sheet has been filed; the petitioners being staffs in the office of the Official Liquidator have just carried out the instructions of their superiors; the petitioners have acted in their official capacity and hence in the absence of mandatory sanction from the Central Government, cognizance cannot be taken by the Court; the Official Liquidator of the High Court had also taken out an application and filed a report in SR61482/20-21 dtd. 19/7/2021 by which he sought protection to his Sub-ordinate Officer including the petitioners from harassment by the police; the petitioners are innocent and they have been unnecessarily implicated in this case; the first respondent had wantonly suppressed the fact that the petitioners are Government employees; hence the proceedings should be quashed.