S.VENKATRAMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A1 in C.C.No.9825 of 2005 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, has preferred this revision challenging an order dismissing his petition in Crl.M.P.No.6997 of 2020, filed U/s.239 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The quintessence of the prosecution case is that A1 to A8 and A9, the company whose affairs A1 and A2 presided as directors, are alleged to have committed offences U/s.406 and 420 I.P.C. The other relevant facts are:

(3.) The final report in this case has been laid, charges too have been framed against A1 to A8 for offence U/s.406 and 420 I.P.C. It is in this scenario, A1 had preferred Crl.M.P.No.6997 of 2020 before the trial Court for his discharge. The trial Court had dismissed it and its line of reasoning is that there the materials made available show a triable case. As stated earlier, this revision is directed against the aforesaid order of the trial Court.