logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 951 print Preview print Next print
Case No : CRL RC No. 1191 of 2015 & Crl.O.P.No. 21243 of 2014
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Parties : N. Ganesh Agarwal & Another Versus The Inspector Of Police Anti Corruption Bureau of Investigation, Chennai
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: M. Murali Kumaran, Senior Counsel for R. Gopinath, Advocate. For the Respondent: K. Srinivasan,Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases.
Date of Judgment : 05-02-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 397 and 401 -
Summary :-
Mistral API responded but no summary was generated.
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This criminal revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 04/08/2015 in Crl.M.P.No.3615/2014 in C.C.No.3/2014 passed by the Hon’ble XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases at Chennai and allow this Revision Petition. This criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.3 of 2014 on the file of XII Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases at Chennai, in so far as the petitioner/Accused-2 is concerned.)

Common Order:

Today, the matter was listed for further hearing and for submission of citations relied on by the counsel for the petitioners. At this stage, the Registry received a communication from the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, 4th Floor, “A” Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001. The said communication along with its annexure (a representation from All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (AILAJ)) was scanned and extracted below for reference:





2. The said communication was shared with the Special Public Prosecutor, CBI and with the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mr.Muralikumaran appearing for Mr.R.Gopinath, learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Muralikumaran submitted that the allegations contained in the representation are totally false and he is ready to cooperate with any kind of enquiry in this regard.

3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that this type of representation should not be entertained and such representation affects the dignity of the Court and therefore, stern steps to be taken to find the person behind such false representation and to take appropriate action.

4. In view of specific allegations contained in the representation given by All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ), Chennai, this Courts finds that it is appropriate that the issue to be referred to the Vigilance Cell of the Madras High Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to hear this case. It is appropriate that the matter is placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for posting before an appropriate Bench and also to issue appropriate directions to the Vigilance Cell to conduct enquiry and to take appropriate action in this regard.
 
  CDJLawJournal