G SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners/A.7 and A.8 have projected the present Criminal Original Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondent/Complainant /Prosecution to produce the original complaints filed by the De facto Complainant for obtaining certified copies of the same.

(2.) The Learned XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CBI Cases Relating to Banks and Financial Institutions), Chennai, while passing the impugned order on 24.6.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.1680 of 2014 in C.C.No.22 of 1997 (filed by the Petitioners/A.7 and A.8), had inter alia, observed that ..... "The present petition has been filed without any bona fide. No purpose will be served by calling for documents, which are admittedly considered by the prosecution to the effect that they are not available in the Court records. This matter has already been decided by this Court in an earlier petition filed by A.1 and A.2 in Crl.M.P.No.5021 of 2013 dated 8.1.2014 and this fact is well known to the Petitioners/Accused and the present Petition is filed only to protract the disposal of the case and the steps taken by the Petitioners frivolously with a mala fide intention has to be taken into consideration by the Court very seriously" and resultantly dismissed the petition by ordering an exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- to be borne by the Petitioners equally, i.e., Rs.5,000/- each to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai.

(3.) Assailing the correctness of order of dismissal passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1680 of 2014 in C.C.No.22 of 1997, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/A.7 and A.8 urges before this Court that the original complaints should have been sent along with the F.I.Rs to the Court and as such, it forms part of 'Court Records' and as such, the said 'Records' are to be maintained pending trial.