G MOORTHY Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of a direction to the respondent police to execute the non-bailable warrant dated 26. 03. 2008 issued by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in Crime No. 124 of 2008 for securing the arrest of the second accused and pass such other orders.

(2.) MR. Habibullah Badsha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the defacto complainant in this case. It is submitted that the complaint is in relation to the alleged offences of cheating and misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 18 Crores. It is submitted that the second accused in this case was apprehended in Mumbai on 17. 03. 2008 and enlarged on transit bail by the Court of Sessions, Mumbai, on condition that he shall appear before the Magistrate's Court in Chennai on 26. 03. 2008. The learned senior counsel submitted that after obtaining such order from the Mumbai Court, the second accused has also preferred a petition for anticipatory bail before this Court and after this Court expressed its disinclination to grant the relief sought for as the petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable, the petition was withdrawn on 01. 04. 2008 in Crl. O. P. No. 6657 of 2008. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that even thereafter the second accused has not appeared before the Magistrate's Court and on the other hand, the second accused has filed another petition for anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl. O. P. No. 17257 of 2008 and this Court dismissed the petition by the order dated 07. 08. 2008. The learned senior counsel contended that in spite of issuing the non-bailable warrant by the learned Magistrate as early as on 26. 03. 2008, the respondent police has not taken any effective steps to execute the non-bailable warrant and no action was taken till date. The learned senior counsel contended that the conduct of the accused would amount to a clear case of disobedience of the orders passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai and this Court and in view of the inaction on the part of the respondent police, the second accused has taken advantage and is siphoned off the misappropriated amount from the petitioner and tampering with the evidence causing hindrance to the investigation. It is further submitted that as a result, the petitioner has been put into great hardship and irreparable loss and as such the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court with the above said prayer.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the second accused appeared before this Court today and submitted that the second accused has filed a petition for recalling the non-bailable warrant before the learned Magistrate and such petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate and challenging that order, the petitioner has preferred a revision before this Court and the revision is posted for hearing before this Court on Monday, i. e. , on 18. 08. 2008 and therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second accused that this matter may also be posted on Monday, i. e. , on 18. 08. 2008 to hear both the matters together.