IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.09.2017 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN Crl.O.P.No.19001 of 2017
Procedure Code praying to direct the respondent to register FIR on the report of the petitioner dated 13.10.2016 and investigate the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. Sirajudeen, Senior Counsel For Respondents : Mr. K. Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor [CBI cases]
O R D E R
This petition is filed to direct the respondent to register the FIR based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 13.10.2016.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner furnished his property as surety to avail loan of Rs.3,50,00,000/- for the company promoted by him and another by name Ramamurthy. The allegation of the petitioner is that while the terms of the loan is that the money can be released only on signature made by both the parties, the other Director Ramamurthy in connivance with the bank officials has withdrawn the money despite protest letter given by him. Without the signature, the money was credited to the company's account and from the company account, it has been transferred to the account of Ramamurthy without his knowledge despite protest. Initially complaint was given to CBI, but CBI returned the complaint because they have no jurisdiction to investigate the private Bank pertaining to private Bank matters. But subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered a judgment in the case of CBI v. Ramesh Gelli reported in (2016(3) SCC 788), in which it was stated that even if the offence is committed by a private bank, CBI can investigate the matter. Later CBI had suo mottu themselves taken the matter, called the complainant and collected the materials from him for investigation two months back. But so far as there was no progress in the investigation.
3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI cases) submitted that after the development, march of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter was taken up and the complainant was called for investigation.
4. In view of the above said submissions, this Court is of the opinion that it is too premature to issue any direction as prayed, since CBI has already taken up the matter and preliminary enquiry is underway. It is for them to make enquiry and arrive at a conclusion whether any criminality has been made out and whether it requires prosecution by the CBI. Therefore, it is suffice to direct the respondent to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible and the result may be communicated to the petitioner.
5. With the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed.
13.09.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no dpq
Dr.G. JAYACHANDRAN
dpq To
1. The Joint Director, Anti Corruption, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shastri Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34.
2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.19001 of 2017
13.09.2017