Kerala High Court
Saji V John vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2025
2025:KER:53940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 10650 OF 2024
CRIME NO.712/2004 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
CC NO.70 OF 2016 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(VIGILANCE), KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
SAJI V JOHN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.JOHN, VETTUVAZHIYIL HOUSE, ANGADIPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM - 679 321., FORMER TEACHER, FATHIMA U.P.
SCHOOL, PARIYAPURAM
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NIRMAL.S
SMT.VEENA HARI
SMT.KEERTHY JOHNSON
SHRI.ABDUL SAHAD M.H.
SMT.MINTU JOSE
SMT.GINI GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, MALAPPURAM.,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RAJESH.A.,VACB
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S., VACB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.7.2025 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.10620/2024, THE COURT ON 21.07.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:53940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 10620 OF 2024
CRIME NO.712/2004 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
CC NO.71 OF 2016 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE (VIGILANCE), KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
SAJI.V.JOHN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.JOHN, VETTUVAZHIYIL HOUSE, ANGADIPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM - 679 321., FORMER TEACHER, FATHIMA U.P.
SCHOOL, PARIYAPURAM
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NIRMAL.S
SMT.VEENA HARI
SMT.KEERTHY JOHNSON
SHRI.ABDUL SAHAD M.H.
SMT.MINTU JOSE
SMT.GINI GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AND STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, MALAPPURAM.,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RAJESH.A.,VACB
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S., VACB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.7.2025 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.10650/2024, THE COURT ON 21.07.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:53940
CR
COMMON ORDER
Dated this the 21th day of July, 2025
Crl.M.C.No.10650/2024 has been filed under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the petitioner is
the 2nd accused, Sri.Saji.V.John in C.C.No.70/2016 on the files of the
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode.
The prayers are as under:
1. Quash the Final Report 1/15 dated 23/01/2015 on
FIR VC 8/2005/MPM dated 18/08/2005 and all
further proceedings, which is now pending as CC
70/2016 before the Court of Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge Kozhikode and
all further proceedings pursuant it.
2. To set aside the order dated 13-09-2021 in
CMP.150/2021 in C.C.70/2016 and C.C.71/2016.
2. The same petitioner, Sri.Saji.V.John, who is arrayed as
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 4
2025:KER:53940
the 2nd accused in C.C.No.71/2016 on the files of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode, has filed
Crl.M.C.No.10620/2024 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the following prayers:
1. Quash the Final Report 2/15 dated 23/01/2015
on FIR VC 8/2005/MPM dated 18/08/2005 and
all further proceedings, which is now pending as
CC 71/2016 before the Court of Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge Kozhikode and
all further proceedings pursuant it.
2. To set aside the order dated 13-09-2021 in
CMP.150/2021 in C.C.70/2016 and C.C.71/2016.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. I shall refer the parties in these Crl.M.C.s as ‘prosecution’
and ‘accused’ hereinafter, for easy reference.
5. In C.C.No.70/2016, the prosecution alleges commission
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 5
2025:KER:53940of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988‘
hereinafter) as well as under Sections 403 and 409 r/w Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC‘ hereinafter), by the
accused. The prosecution case as per the final report is as under:
The accused persons 1) Smt.Thressiamma.C.J.Age
64/15, w/o. Francis, Illimoottil (H), (PO) Pariyapuram,
Via) Angadippuram, Headmistress, Fathima U.P.School,
Pariyapuram (Retired) and A2) Sri. Saji.V.John, s/o. John,
Age 46/15, Vettuvazhiyil (H), (PO) Vettilappara, Via)
Areacode, Teacher, Panthalloor U.P.School, while working
as Headmistress and teacher respectively of the Fathima
U.P. School, Pariyapuram during the years 2002 to 2004
and A2 who is entrusted with the duty of Sanchayika
savings fund of students and as such being the public
servants abused their official position committed criminal
misconduct and by dishonestly and fraudulently
misappropriated a total amount of Rs.17,115/- (Rupees
Seventeen thousand one hundred and fifteen only) which was
collected from the students as sanchayika savings
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 6
2025:KER:53940fund by making false entries in the records relating to the
sanchayika fund during the period from 15.7.2002 to
14.07.2003.
6. In C.C.No.71/2016, the prosecution alleges commission of
offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act,
1988 as well as under Sections 403 and 409 r/w Section 34 of the
IPC. The prosecution case as per the final report is as under:
The accused persons 1) Smt. Thressiamma. C. J. Age
64/15, w/o.Francis, Illimoottil (H), (PO) Pariyapuram,
Via) Angadippuram, Headmistress, Fathima U.P.School,
Pariyapuram (Retired) and A2) Sri.Saji.V.John, s/0.
John, Age 46/15 Vettuvazhiyil (H), (PO) Vettilappara,
Via) Areacode, Teacher, Panthalloor U.P.School, while
working as Headmistress and teacher respectively of the
Fathima U.P. School, Pariyapuram during the years 2002
to 2004 and A2 who is entrusted with the duty of
Sanchayika savings fund of students and as such being the
public servants abused their official position committed
criminal misconduct and by dishonestly and fraudulently
misappropriated a total amount of Rs.57,089/- (Rupees
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 7
2025:KER:53940Fifty seven thousand and eighty nine only) which was
collected from the students as sanchayika savings fund by
making false entries in the records relating to the
sanchayika fund during the period from 15.7.2003 to
31.03.2004.
7. In fact, both these cases arose out of the same crime,
where A and B charges have been filed for different periods, viz.,
15.07.2002 to 14.07.2003 and 15.7.2003 to 31.03.2004. In this
matter, the petitioner herein filed a petition (C.M.P.No.150/2021 in
C.C.No.70/2016 and C.C.No.71/2016) before the Special Court,
seeking discharge and the same was dismissed by the learned
Special Judge, as per Annexure A8 order holding that the petition
was filed after framing charge and therefore, the same could not be
considered by the Special Court. Challenging dismissal of the
discharge petition, revision petition had been filed before this Court
and this Court, as per Annexure A10 order, dated 21.11.2024,
dismissed the revision petition with liberty to the petitioner to
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 8
2025:KER:53940
challenge the final report. Now, the petitioner challenges the final
report as well as the dismissal of the discharge petition.
8. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that, in this matter, investigation was
conducted alleging offences punishable under Sections 403, 409,
418, 465, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of the IPC, when a complaint lodged
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Perinthalmanna
was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Perinthalmanna police
station, directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter) by the
learned Magistrate. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, while the investigation had been going on, without any
official communication or order from the superior police officers or
from the court concerned, the Vigilance took over investigation and
completed the investigation and as the outcome of the same, the
present final report with A and B charges had been filed before the
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 9
2025:KER:53940
Special Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
when there is an order directing investigation by the Station House
Officer of a particular police station, the investigation could not be
transferred to another police station without the order of the court
or that of the superior police officers. It is pointed out that in the
instant case, no order of the court obtained to investigate this crime
by the Vigilance and also, no superior police officers ordered
investigation of this crime by the Vigilance. It is also highlighted
that, in paragraph No.11 of Annexure A8 order itself, the learned
Special Judge followed the ratio in the decision in Bency N.L. v.
Dr.Preceline George and Others reported in [2010 (2) KLT
993] and quoted that “it is not permissible for an Investigating
agency in respect of an Order under Section 156(3) is passed, to
transfer the FIR to another Police Station on the premise that the
offence has committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction”. Relying
on the said decision, the learned Special Judge found that “the
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 10
2025:KER:53940
Circle Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna Police Station, who was
conducting investigation based on the Order of a Magistrate under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. taken steps to transfer the FIR to another
Investigating agency on the premise that he had no competence to
investigate the case and the agency so addressed took up the
investigation without an Order of the Director General of Police”.
Observing so, the Special Court found that there was merit in the
contention of the accused in this regard, but the same could be
addressed only at the trial stage. That apart, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that even though before the
dismissal of the discharge petition charge was framed and PW1 was
examined in part, all the records of the prosecution were not
furnished to the accused. The learned counsel further pointed out
that, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Criminal Trials
Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, in
RE.. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 11
2025:KER:53940
[(2021) 10 SCC 598], in paragraph No.11, the Apex Court held
that, this Court is of the opinion that while furnishing the list of
statements, documents and material objects under Sections
207/208 CrPC, the Magistrate should also ensure that a list of
other materials, (such as statements, or objects/documents seized,
but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused. This is to
ensure that in case the accused is of the view that such materials
are necessary to be produced for a proper and just trial, she or he
may seek appropriate orders, under CrPC for their production
during the trial, in the interests of justice. It is directed
accordingly; the Draft Rules have been accordingly modified.
9. Adverting to the contentions, I have called for a report
from the learned Special Judge regarding availability of any letter
sent by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court to the learned
Special Judge, Vigilance by transferring the FIR and connected
records. In reply to the same, the learned Special Judge forwarded
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 12
2025:KER:53940
copy of a letter, dated 04.03.2006, whereby, the learned Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram addressed the
learned Special Judge, Vigilance Court, Kozhikode, and thereby, the
FIR and connected papers in Perinthalmanna Crime No.712/2004
were transferred for favour of consideration in Vigilance Crime
No.08/2005 before the Special Court. When the above letter was
scrutinized by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted
that this letter was addressed after registration of the crime by the
Vigilance and there is no order or letter of the District Police
Superintendent to see that the Vigilance was directed to take over
and proceed with the investigation in Crime No.712/2004 of
Perinthalmanna the police station. So, according to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner would require an
opportunity of pre-charge hearing again.
10. Opposing these contentions, it is submitted by the
learned Public Prosecutor that, in this case, the petitioner, who
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 13
2025:KER:53940
accepted documents form part of the final report on his appearance
before the Special Court, did not raise any objection regarding non-
supply of any documents from the prosecution side and he conceded
to the jurisdiction of the Special Court since 2016 deeming that he
was given all the prosecution records. Thereafter, the court framed
charge for the said offences and started trial. Furthermore, PW1
was examined in chief and at this stage, discharge petition was filed
and the learned Special Judge rightly dismissed the same holding
that after framing charge and start of examination of witnesses, no
question of reverting back to the stage prior to pre-charge. So, it is
submitted that the discharge petition filed in this case was out of
time and thereby, the Special Court rightly dismissed the same. In
this matter, it is crystal clear that the petitioner conceded to the
jurisdiction of the Special Court in the year 2016 and obtained the
prosecution records and not opted to file a discharge petition and
thereafter, the Special Court heard the matter for framing charge
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 14
2025:KER:53940
and thereafter, charge was framed. Pursuant to that, summons
issued to the witnesses and PW1 was examined. At this stage,
discharge petition was filed and the Special Court rightly dismissed
the same and the said order does not require any interference.
11. Coming to the prayer for quashment, mainly based on
procedural lapse, it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor
that, as per letter, dated 20.05.2005, the Director General of Police
addressed the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Thiruvananthapuram, whereby the CD file in Crime No.712/2004 of
Perinthalmanna police station was forwarded to the Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Bureau directing further action and therefore, this
letter would go to the root of contention raised by the petitioner. It
is also submitted that the transfer was ordered acting on a letter,
dated 06.05.2005, whereby, the Inspector General of Police, North
Zone, Kozhikode requested transfer of the case to the Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram. Even prior to that,
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 15
2025:KER:53940
as per letter, dated 31.01.2005, the Superintendent of Police,
Malappuram addressed the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Bureau requesting transfer of this crime. Relying on the above
documents, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in this
case, investigation of this crime by the Vigilance is as directed by the
Director General of Police and therefore, there is no procedural
lapse or legal rider for the Vigilance to investigate this crime and in
such view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner on this ground is of no avail. Accordingly, the
learned Public Prosecutor is urged dismissal of these petitions
permitting the prosecution to continue and finish the trial to its
logical conclusion.
12. Since it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner
relying on the decision in Bency‘s case (supra) asserting that the
Special Court quoted in paragraph No.11 that “it is not permissible
for an Investigating agency in respect of an Order under Section
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 16
2025:KER:53940
156(3) is passed, to transfer the FIR to another Police Station on
the premise that the offence has committed beyond its territorial
jurisdiction”, I am inclined to refer the decision. On going through
the said decision, it could be gathered that, when a private
complaint was filed, alleging commission of offence under Section
498A of the IPC, the same was forwarded for investigation before
the police station where the complainant was resided and part of the
occurrence took place. Thereafter, the Station House Officer therein
transferred the FIR and complaint to another police station where
part of the incident occurred. When the said action was challenged
before this Court, this Court held that it was not permissible to
transfer FIR to another police station for the reason that the police
station to which the complaint was forwarded
under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., had no
territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence. Accordingly,
this Court directed the Station House Officer, where
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 17
2025:KER:53940
the complaint was forwarded within whose jurisdiction the
complainant resided, to continue the investigation. In fact, in the
said decision, this Court disallowed the transfer of the FIR mainly
finding that part of the occurrence was within the jurisdiction of the
police station where the complaint was transferred and part of the
occurrence alone was within the limit of other police station. In fact,
in Bency‘s case (supra), this Court never laid a ratio, as extracted by
the learned Special Judge and the ratio therein is that when a
complaint is forwarded to a police station where part of the
occurrence took place, then, the Station House Officer therein could
not transfer FIR for investigation by the Station House Officer of
another police station urging that part of the occurrence was within
the jurisdiction of the said police station. Therefore, the finding of
the Special Court otherwise is held as erroneous.
13. On perusal of the records, it could be seen that, as early
as in the year 2004, vide Crime No.712/2004 of Perinthalmanna
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 18
2025:KER:53940
police station, investigation started and thereafter, final report filed
by the Vigilance before the Special Judge. The Special Judge took
cognizance of the matter in the year 2016. Thereafter, records of the
prosecution were also given to the accused and after hearing both
sides, charge also framed, alleging commission of the said offences.
Thereafter, examination of witnesses also commenced and PW1 was
examined in part. It was thereafter, the accused filed discharge
petition and the same is not legally sustainable, since the Special
Court has no power to consider the discharge petition after framing
charge, since the Special Court, being a criminal court, has no power
to review its order by reverting back to pre-charge hearing stage.
Therefore, dismissal of the discharge petition by the Special Court
would only to be justified.
14. Regarding the quashment, the sum and substance of the
arguments tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner are,
now, as such, not at all sustainable in view of the discussion made in
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 19
2025:KER:53940
the foregoing paragraphs by addressing the entrustment of the
investigation by the Director General of Police to the Vigilance.
Thus, it is evident from the above documents that even though an
investigation was ordered by the learned Magistrate to be conducted
by the Perinthalmanna police station when crime was registered and
investigated by the Perinthalmanna police station, as per the order
of the Director General of Police, the investigation was entrusted to
the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and the same was ratified
by the learned Magistrate by forwarding the letters to the Special
Court. Therefore, the procedural lapse pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner could not be found, prima facie. As far
the ratio in Bency‘s case (supra) is concerned, the observation of
the Special Court in paragraph No.11 would govern the matter.
15. Upon overall scrutiny of the materials of the case where
already trial and examination of witnesses had started, plea of
discharge filed after framing charge and quashment of the entire
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 20
2025:KER:53940
materials would not succeed. At this stage, the plea of the petitioner
to provide a pre-charge hearing also could not be considered, in a
case witnesses examination already started. In such view of the
matter, these petitions would deserve dismissal.
In the result, both these petitions stand dismissed with
direction to the Special Court to complete the trial in this 2016
matter, arose out of crime of the year 2004. at the earliest, at any
rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
The interim stay granted by this Court, deferring the trial of
both the cases, stand vacated.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the
Special Court, for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 21
2025:KER:53940
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10650/2024
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
NO.1/2015 DATED 23/01/2015
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENCE IN VC.8/05 U/S 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2)
OF PC ACT 1988 AND SECTION 403,409 R/W 34
IPC OF VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
MALAPPURAM
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF ALL
WITNESSES
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP.414/2019 DATED
02/09/2019
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED IN
CMP.414/2019 DATED 04/09/2019
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP.150/2021 IN CC.
70/2016 AND CC.71/2016 DATED 01/07/2021
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN CMP.150/2021
DATED 12/07/2021
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.150/2021 IN
CC.70/2016 AND CC.71/2016 DATED 13/09/2021
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
29/11/2021 DEFERRING THE TRIAL PROCEEDING
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
CRL.R.P.NO.682 OF 2021 DATED 21/11/2024
Annexure A11 THE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT CMP.NO.
3246/2004 DATED 27-11-2004
Annexure A12 THE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
DATED 1-12-2004 WITH RE-TYPED COPY
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES : NIL
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 22
2025:KER:53940
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10620/2024
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
NO.2/2015 DATED 23/01/2015
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENCE IN VC.8/05 U/S.13(1)(d) R/W 13(2)
OF PC ACT 1988 AND SECTION 403,409 R/W 34
IPC OF VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
MALAPPURAM
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF ALL
WITNESSES
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP.414/2019 DATED
02/09/2019
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED IN
CMP.414/2019 DATED 04/09/2019
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP.150/2021 IN CC.
70/2016 AND CC.71/2016 DATED 01/07/2021
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN CMP.150/2021
DATED 12/07/2021
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.150/2021 IN
CC.70/2016 AND CC.71/2016 DATED 13/09/2021
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
29/11/2021 DEFERRING THE TRIAL PROCEEDING
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
CRL.R.P.NO.682 OF 2021 DATED 21/11/2024
Annexure A 11 THE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT CMP NO.
3246/2004 DATED 27-11-2004
Annexure A 12 THE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
DATED 1-12-2004 WITH RE-TYPED COPY
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES : NIL