KISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above criminal original petition has been filed by the defacto complainant in Crime No. 60 of 2006 on the file of the inspector of Police, CBCID-Metro Wing, Chennai.

(2.) THE short facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above criminal original petition are set-out below: on the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant a case in Crime No. 60 of 2006 came to be registered against (1) Babulal @ Lakshmichand Bafna, (2) Pinku @ Dharmendra bafna, (3) Mahendar Bafna, (4) Rakesh Bafna, (5) Shanthilal surana, (6) Gowtham Chand Surana, (7) Vijayaraj Surana, (8)Dinesh Chand Surana, (9) Maran, for the alleged offences under sections 406, 409, 420, 506 (ii) read with 120-B of the Indian penal Code; after completing investigation in the case, a final report dated 08. 10. 2007 was filed only as against two accused, viz. , Babulal @ Lakshmichand Bafna and Pinku @ Dharmendra Bafna on 10. 10. 2007 in charge sheet No. 2 of 2007 and now the case has been taken on file and the same is pending in C. C. No. 13970 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, george Town, Chennai. The grievance of the petitioner is that though there is overwhelming materials to bring home the complicity of all the nine accused to the offence, the investigating officer due to undue influence and extraneous considerations did not investigate into the role of the directors of M/s. Surana Corporation Limited against whom the complaint was originally made. According to the petitioner/defacto complainant, no effective investigation was made to unearth the truth for the reasons best known to the respondent.

(3.) HEARD Mr. John Sathyan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Saravanan learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent.