[ad_1]
The Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) on Monday informed the Madras High Court of having completed the investigation in a case against DMK MP S. Jagathrakshakan for alleged forgery in purchase of shares of Chrome Leather Company Private Limited in 1995.
Appearing before Justice N. Sathish Kumar, Advocate General Vijay Narayan and State Public Prosecutor A. Natarajan submitted that even a draft chargesheet was ready in the case. They sought permission of the court to file it before the judicial magistrate concerned in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).
The submissions were made during the hearing of a petition filed by the MP last year to quash the First Information Report (FIR) on the basis of a complaint lodged in 2007. The police had initially closed the complaint after terming it as a mistake of fact. However, in 2013, the CB-CID decided to reopen the case for further investigation.
A judicial magistrate in Chengalpattu refused permission. Hence, the investigating agency preferred a revision petition and obtained permission from an additional sessions court in 2016. Thereafter, the FIR was assigned a new number and the matter was taken up for further investigation. When the MP was summoned for inquiry last year, he moved the High Court to quash the FIR.
Passing interim orders in the quash petition on August 24, Justice Kumar restrained the CB-CID from arresting the MP. The judge, however, directed him to cooperate with the investigating agency probing the case. On November 30, the court passed another order directing CB-CID not to file chargesheet till the disposal of the plea to quash the FIR.
Urging the court to modify those interim orders, the A-G on Monday told the court that the CB-CID may be permitted to file the chargesheet and instead the Judicial Magistrate could be restrained from taking cognisance. However, senior counsel C. Manishankar, representing the MP, objected to the plea and insisted on taking up the quash petition for final hearing.
After hearing both sides, the judge asked the A-G and the SPP to find out whether the CB-CID would be agreeable to share a copy of the chargesheet with the petitioner. He said the petitioner could also mull over the possibility of filing a petition to quash the chargesheet too and adjourned the case before him for further hearing to February 24 after extending the interim orders.
[ad_2]
Source link
