SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

விஜய் சேதுபதி தரப்பில் வழக்கறிஞர் நர்மதா சம்பத் VIJAY GURUNATHA SETHUPATHI.K quash case copy for petioner former aag Narmada mam argued for resp dv infant jesus

by · Published · Updated

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION
(Under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code)

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

CRL.O.P.No OF 2019
Against
Crime No. 4738 of 2021
(On the file of IX METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, SAIDAPET)

VIJAY GURUNATHA SETHUPATHI.K
S/o G.Kalaimuthu
Hindu, aged about 43 years
Having Office at
Vijay Sethupathi Productions
No. 33 – 17, Poochi Athipedu,
ThiruNagar,
Valasaravakkam,
Chennai – 600087.
… Petitioner/ 1st Accused
Vs
MAHA GHANDHI M/A 43 Years
S/o. S.V Ghandhi
No. 1, Selvar OAK Naveen,
North Avenue, Srinagar Colony,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600015.
… Respondent/ Complainant

PETITION UNDER 482 CrPc
The Petitioner/Accused herewith submits as follows:-

I. Address for Service;
The address for service of all notices and processes on the petitioner is that of his Counsel MS NARMADHA SAMPATH, E. Balamurugan, H. Lucia Priyadarshini and P. Manoj Kumar having their Office/Chamber at No.88/30, AA Block, 1st street, Anna Nagar, Chennai -40
The Address for service of all notices and processes on the respondent is the same as stated above.
I. SYNOPSIS:
1. The de facto complainant/Respondent herein had filed a false and frivolous Petition before the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, under Section 200 CrPC for registration of complaint against the Petitioner herein. The sum and substance of the entire facts narrated in the Affidavit are spurious, voracious and vexatious and a concocted tale. Based on the petition filed by the de facto complainant/Respondent herein, the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet had issued summons to the Petitioner herein for appearance on 04/01/2022.

II. PETITIONER’S CASE:
1. The Petitioner is an ACTOR and a Producer in the Indian Film Industry, predominantly working in the Tamil Film Industry. He has also been engaging in many social and philanthropic activities. The Petitioner does not have any Criminal Records/Cases against him.
2. The averments and allegations avered by the de facto complainant in the Petition are spurious and the de facto complainant/Respondent herein is put to strict proof of the same.
3. The de facto complainant had averred in parra 5 of the Petition mentioning that he is an Actor in the Tamil Cinema Industry, the Petitioner herein is not however aware of the said facts and does not wish to protest the same.
4. The averments made in parra’s 6-14 are denied as spurious and vexatious and the same is done with a malafide intent to defame the Petitioner herein and to tarnish his reputation in the Society as well as among his peers in the Industry in which he is a part of and also to traduce his stature.
5. It is imperative to note that apart from the instant Criminal Petition, the de facto complainant had also given various Interviews to both Print and Electronic Media including many offline journals and tutored by his words several scurrilous articles were published/circulated against the Petitioner herein which has caused serious reverberation and thus jeopardizing his repute.
6. The Petitioner humbly submits that On 02/11/2021, the Petitioner along with his associate Mr. Johnson who is the Accused No:2 in the Petition filed by the de facto complainant before the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet was gojng to Bangalore from Chennai to visit and pay respects to (late) actor Puneeth Rajkumar and his family members and Shoot for MasterChef Tamil which telecasted on Sun TV..
7. The Petitioner was waiting for to collect his baggage near the Airport Baggage section along with Mr Johnson.
8. While the situation stood thus, the de facto complainant herein walking towards the Petitioner and introduced himself saying he is Maha Gandhi Devar and further he said that he is related to Director/Actor Saravanan Sakthi. Petitioner shook hands with him. Then the De facto Complaint forced to tell his cast, and Petitoner chivalrously refused and implored the de facto complainant to leave as de facto complainant under the influence of alcohol.
9. It is imperative to note that the Petitioner as well as Mr. Johnson and the other Airport Security personnel were well aware that the de facto complainant was under the influence of Alcohol and it is an added reason that the Petitioner had avoided taking pictures with the de facto complainant.
10. Disgruntled with the refusal and under the influence of alcohol the de facto complainant started verbally assaulting Petitioner herein and Mr. Johnson by passing lewd, scurrilous and opprobrious remarks as using un parlimentary words about him and his family. The said act was witnessed by the officials as well as the fans and general public in the Airport. Petitioner asked him to mind his words, and waved to the security personal to take him aside. In order to avoid the rattle and commotion the Petitioner herein left the lobby along with Mr. Johnson and was proceeding towards Parking.
11. While the Petitioner were taking photoes with the fans on the way of parking, de facto complainant who came out of the airport was constantly bickering and vociferating disgraceful comments and unexpectedly in the spur of the moment, and the Johnson had got into a fight with a de facto complainant. while trying to separate both, the petitioner pushed the de facto complainant away to clear the fight. Then the airport secutiry interrupted the fight and cleared them. jumping past the security post the de facto complainant sprang towards the Petitioner and kicked him and put the boot onto him. This caused petitioner to stumble. Then, petitioner herein sustained minor injury in his disk bone/Spinal Cord however not fatal.
12. Immediately the Airport Security as well as the Bangalore City Police stopped the de facto complainant and put him onto the ground so as to prevent him from hurting the Petitioner anymore. Inspite of the restraint, the de facto complainant was trying to flee himself and was still verbally abusing the Petitioner herein.
13. The entire events were recorded by the many onlookers and fans and the same was immediately circulated in the Internet and many social media platforms. Thereby instantly catching the eyes of the Media and the reputation of the Petitioner was left in jeopardy.
14. While the de facto complainant was held under restraint the Petitioner herein and Mr. Johnson left the airport and were escorted by the Bangalore Police authorities into the Airport Security room. Further the de facto complainant followed the room guarded by the officials and by his aid whose name and details are not known to the Petitioner.
15. The de facto complainant was still in an inebriated state and he was duly questioned by the officials, the de facto complainant immediately tendered unconditional apology to the Petitioner herein and beseeched him not to press any charges against the de facto complainant and that his family and reputation will be gravely affected.
16. The Petitioner herein in order to not precipitate the issue any further and in order to save the de facto complainant from any embarrassment, requested Mr. Johnson not to press any charges against the de facto complainant herein and informed the same to the authorities.
17. Therefore Mr. Johnson had agreed not to precipitate the issue any further and agreed not to press any charges against the de facto complainant.
18. Further the de facto complainant had also admitted in writing that he had got into a Verbal clash with Mr. Johnson and it was a misunderstanding and that he does not want to take it further and signed his name in the statement.
19. It is imperative to note that the de facto complainant had himself agreed and signed a written statement wherein he had divulged that there were no major altercations and that he wishes to end the issue right then. In total defiance to the same, the de facto complainant had now come up with the instant complaint.
1. After almost 3 days after the alleged incident and after the same has been virally being circulated in the News Channels – Print and Electronic Medias and Social Platforms, while there was a debate/confusion about the identity of attacker in the video, the de facto complainant gave an interview to an online portal accepting that it was him who had attacked Mr. Johnson and that he accepted the same publically. It is imperative to note that even during the said interview the de facto complainant did not divulge about him sustaining any injury or the facts that has been averred in the Petition filed before the court. Its pertinent to note that in the said video he stated that someone from the rear side had touched his shoulder, the said statement is proving that since he was under the influence of alcohol didn’t know what was happening around him, which he realized after a conversation with the petitioner n the police officials therefore gave a statement that he had misunderstood the whole scenario.

20. This clearly proves the malafidinees on the part of the de facto complainant herein and this Petition clearly proves that the de facto complainant is a publicity monger and that there is no truth in the Petition and the same has been done with an ill founded motive only to seek media attention and to disgrace and slander the reputation of the Petitioner herein.
21. It is imperative to note that, it has been averred that the de facto complainant had been physically assaulted by the Petitioner herein and Mr. Johnson and on account of the same he has sustained injuries in his ear. The said facts are nothing but a concocted web of lies fabricated by the de facto complainant and far from truth. If the de facto complainant had sustained any injury he ought to have informed the Police in Bengaluru and instead of doing the same he waited for weeks and in order to precipitate this issue and for personal gains the de facto complainant had falsely averred about the injury.
22. The de facto complainant had further averred in his affidavit that the Petitioner herein had passed derogatory remarks and comments on his Caste, leader etc. The averments are vehemently denied and the de facto complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is pertinent to note that falsely alleging and taking into vain the affairs of any CASTE for personal and political vendetta is against law and is a punishable offence. Therefore such remarks averred and sworn by the de facto complainant in his Affidavit will be taken on record and on finding the same to be false, he can be held liable by court for an offence of PERJURY and liable for prosecution
23. From a perusal of the aforestated, it is evident that a patently false and baseless article as well as Affidavit, which is divorced from true and correct facts has been published in the Print/Media/Social Platforms on your instruction. The Petitioner herein has reasons to believe and apprehend that the said article has been published by the de facto complainant at the behest of some third party, with malicious and malafide intent to harm his legal interest, reputation and goodwill. The impugned Article seeks to portray and does in fact portray a false and incorrect impression about the Petitioner in the minds of the readers as well as among his peers and in the minds of the common public. The publication of the impugned Article has caused an irreparable injury and loss of Reputation to the Petitioner herein.
24. The de facto complainant with an ill-founded motive has now filed a Petition before the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, under Section 200 CrPC (CC No. 4738/2021) for registration of complaint against the Petitioner herein. Based on the petition filed by the de facto complainant, the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet without following the procedures contemplated under Section 200 and Section 204 CrPC has not been followed and the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet had issued summons to the Petitioner herein on 08/10/2021 requiring his presence on 04/01/2022.
25. Being aggrieved over the same , the petitioner is before this Hon’ble Court to quash the impugned CC No. 4738/2021 on the following among other grounds;

GROUNDS

a. Delay in reporting/registering a complaint;
It is imperative to note that the alleged incident happened on 02/11/2021 in Bangalore International Airport. The de facto complainant has filed the present petition before the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet only on 04/12/2021.
In the case of Vide Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana
(1997) 7 SCC 231, it was held;
Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding the truth of its version. In case there is some delay in filing the FIR/registering a complaint, the complainant must give an explanation for the same. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal.

b. Malafide Intent of the defacto complainant/lodging false complaint: JUDICIAL PROCESS SHOULD NOT BE AN INSTRUMENT OF OPPRESSION OR NEEDLES HARASSMENT:
It is pertinent to note that the said petition has been filed with a mallafide intent to defame the Petitioner herein and the averments made in the Petition are false, frivolous, voracious and vexatious and liable to be quashed. The de facto complainant had also admitted in writing that he had got into a Verbal clash with Mr. Johnson and it was a misunderstanding and that he does not want to take it further and signed his name in the statement. The de facto complainant had himself agreed and signed a written statement wherein he had divulged that there were no major altercations and that he wishes to end the issue right then. In total defiance to the same, the de facto complainant had now come up with the instant complaint.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335
Laid down the guidelines providing that an FIR can be quashed by the High Court where allegations made in the FIR complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and also where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge

In the case of Dr. Raman Srikanth vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its … on 7 November, 2014, it was held as follows;
The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In Punjab National Bank and Others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499, Supreme Court holds,
5. It is also salutary to note that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needles harassment. The complaint was laid impleading the Chairman, the Managing Director of the Bank by name and a host of officers. There lies responsibility and duty on the Magistracy to find whether the concerned accused should be legally responsible for the offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded then only process would be issued. At that stage the court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. Considered from any angle we find that the respondent had abused the process and laid complaint against all the appellants without any prima facie case of harass them for vendetta.

c. Issue of Jurisdiction:
It is imperative to note that the entire incident occurred in Kempagowda International, Bengaluru Airport and after the Petitioner and his associate Mr. Johnson were physically assaulted by the de facto complainant herein, the officers of Airport Police Station, Kempagowda International, Bengaluru immediately caught the de facto complainant and took him to the Security Booth/station where he was confined. The Petitioner was also called upon to come to the Station along with Mr. Johnson and only there the de facto complainant had sought for forgiveness from the Petitioner herein and based on the advise of the Inspector and Sub-Inspector of the Airport Police Station, Kempagowda International, Bengaluru, the de facto complainant, had himself agreed and signed a written statement wherein he had divulged that there were no major altercations and that he wishes to end the issue right then. When the entire sum and substance of the instant Petition had arose within the Jurisdiction limits of Bangalore/ Kempagowda International, Airport it is not known as to how the de facto complainant can maintain the present Petition before the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet and the Petition as well as the entire proceedings in CC No. 4738/2021 is liable to be quashed on this ground.
In Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors.- VS- Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100, the Apex Court held in para 12, 13 & 19 as under :
“12. The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court concerned. In terms of Section 177 of the Code, it is the place where the offence was committed. In essence it is the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings against the accused.
13. While in civil cases, normally the expression “cause of action”, in criminal cases as stated in Section 177 of the Code, reference is to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed. These variations in etymological expression do not really make the position different. The expression “cause of action” is, therefore, not a stranger to criminal cases.
19. When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to respondent No. 2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”

Following the decision in Y. Abraham Ajith’s case, the Apex Court in Bhura Ram & Ors.-VS- State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in (2008) 11 SCC 103 held that
“court cannot try the offence at a place, where no part of the offence was committed within its jurisdiction. In the said case, the Apex Court having quashed the proceeding, on the ground that no part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the complaint was directed to be returned to the complainant enabling him to file the same in appropriate court, having territorial jurisdiction. As no part of the offence or cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Jorhat, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat did not have the jurisdiction to enquire into or try the case in hand”

d. Procedure enumerated under CRPC not followed by the Magistrate: APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE TAKING COGNIZANCE:
The Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet has not followed the procedures contemplated under Section 204 CrPC before issuing the Summons to the Petitioner herein. Mere filing of a Petition under Section 200 CrPC will not empower the Magistrate to issue summons unless the procedures contemplated in the Code are strictly ahreadred to.
In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420, Supreme Court holds,
20. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course.

In Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others, AIR 2019 SC 2390, Supreme Court holds,
“34. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction.
36. To be summoned/to appear before the Criminal Court as an accused is a serious matter affecting one’s dignity and reputation in the society. In taking recourse to such a serious matter in summoning the accused in a case filed on a complaint otherwise than on a police report, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint constitute essential ingredients of the offence and whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.”

In Kesavan Natesan v. Madhavan Peethambharan And Ors, 1984 CriLJ 324, a three member bench of Kerala High Court observes,
13. If “taking cognizance” means only “becoming aware of” or “taking judicial notice of” an offence, whatever might be the situation in a given case, in law the Magistrate takes cognizance or becomes aware of an offence only once. In that sense, it is correct to say that Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence twice. When on the basis of a police report or private complaint or otherwise, a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, he becomes aware of the commission of the offence and that awareness will certainly continue or at any rate in the eyes of law, be deemed to continue. In such state of affairs, the commission of an offence is again brought to his notice, say by way of private complaint; strictly speaking, he does not take cognizance of the offence again but exercises his judicial power and proceeds with that case in pursuance of the cognizance already taken by him on the previous occasion.

In the case of Devarapalli, (1976) 3 SCC 252 (Three Judges bench) held as follows;
Broadly speaking, when on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under Section 200 and the succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of Section 190(1).
The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1) (a) of Cr.P.C. followed by Section 204 of Cr.P.C. should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court.
The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., by issuing process for appearance. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 of CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before a criminal court as an accused is a serious matter affecting one’s dignity, self respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.

In M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and that would be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”

The petitioner shall seek the liberty to raise additional grounds at the time of arguments before this Honourable Court.

In these circumstances it is most humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may kindly be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in CC.NO. 4738 of 2021 on the file of the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, pending disposal of the accompanying Quash Petition on the file of this Honorable Court and thus render justice.

In these circumstances it is most humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may kindly be pleased to STAY the process of SUMMONS and appearance of the Petitioner herein in issued by the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, issued on 08/12/2021 in CC.NO. 4738 of 2021, pending disposal of the Quash Petition on the file of this Honorable Court and thus render justice.

PRAYER
In these circumstances it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable court may be pleased to call for the records and quash the proceedings in CC.NO. 4738 of 2021 on the file of the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, against the petitioner and pass such other order as necessary and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai on this the day of DECEMBER 2021

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
தனக்கு எதிரான அவதூறு வழக்கை ரத்து செய்யக்கோரி நடிகர் விஜய் சேதுபதி தொடர்ந்த வழக்கின் இறுதி விசாரணையை ஜனவரி 11ஆம் தேதிக்கு தள்ளிவைத்து சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.

சென்னை சைதாப்பேட்டையை சேர்ந்த மகா காந்தி மருத்துவ பரிசோதனைக்காக மைசூர் செல்வதற்காக நவம்பர் 2ஆம் தேதி இரவு பெங்களூர் விமான நிலையத்தில் நடிகர் விஜய் சேதுபதியை எதிர்பாராத விதமாக சந்தித்தபோது, அவரின் சாதனைகளை பாராட்டி வாழ்த்து தெரிவித்ததாகவும், ஆனால் தனது வாழ்த்துகளை ஏற்க மறுத்த விஜய் சேதுபதி பொதுவெளியில் தன்னை இழிவுபடுத்தி பேசியதுடன், தன்னையும் தனது சாதியையும் பற்றி தவறாக பேசியதாக சென்னை சைதாப்பேட்டை நீதிமன்றத்தில் அவதூறு வழக்கு தொடர்ந்தார்.

அந்த மனுவில் உண்மை சம்பவங்கள் இவ்வாறிருக்க, மறுநாள் ஊடகங்களில் தான் தாக்கப்பட்டதாக விஜய் சேதுபதி தரப்பில் அவதூறு பரப்புவதாக மனுவில் குற்றம் சாட்டியுள்ளார். எனவே நடிகர் விஜய் சேதுபதி மற்றும் அவரது மேலாளர் ஜான்சன் ஆகியோர் மீது கிரிமினல் அவதூறு சட்டத்தின் கீழ் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க வேண்டுமென மனுவில் கோரிக்கை வைத்திருந்தார்.

அந்த வழக்கை விசாரித்த சென்னை சைதாப்பேட்டை 9வது பெருநகர உரிமையியல் நீதிமன்றம், ஜனவரி 4ஆம் தேதி நேரில் ஆஜராகி விளக்கம் அளிக்க உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.

இந்நிலையில் சம்மனை ரத்து செய்யக் கோரியும், வழக்கை ரத்து செய்யக்கோரியும் இருவரும் சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் தொடர்ந்த வழக்கு நீதிபதி நிர்மல்குமார் முன்பு விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது.

அப்போது, விஜய் சேதுபதி தரப்பில் வழக்கறிஞர் நர்மதா சம்பத் ஆஜராகி பெங்களூரு எல்லை தொடர்புடைய வழக்கை சென்னையில் தொடர்ந்தது, அதை சைதாப்பேட்டை நீதிமன்றம் விசாரணைக்கு ஏற்றது, இயந்திரத் தனமாக உடனடியாக சம்மன் அனுப்பியது, சமரசம் ஏற்பட்டதை மறைத்து அவதூறு வழக்கு என அடுத்தடுத்த தவறுகள் நடந்துள்ளதாக வாதிட்டார். விளம்பர நோக்கத்துடன், மூன்று கோடி இழப்பீடு கேட்டுள்ளதால், அதிகப்படியான அபராதத்துடன் அந்த வழக்கை ரத்து செய்ய வேண்டுமென வாதிட்டார். வழக்கு விசாரணைக்கு வருவதற்கு முன்பாகவே பதில் மனுத்தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளதாகவும் குற்றம்சாட்டினார்.

மகா காந்தி தரப்பில் வழக்கறிஞர் ஆனார் இன்பேன்ட் தினேஷ் ஆஜராகி, நோட்டீஸ் வந்ததால்தான் பதில் மனுதாக்கல் செய்ததாகவும், விளம்பரத்திற்காக தொடரப்பட்ட வழக்கு அல்ல என்றும், விஜய் சேதுபதியும் அவரது மேலாளரும் தன்னை திட்டி தாக்கியதால்தான் வழக்கு தொடர்ந்ததாக விளக்கம் அளித்தார்.

இதையடுத்து வழக்கின் இறுதி விசாரணைக்காக ஜனவரி 11ஆம் தேதிக்கு நீதிபதி தள்ளிவைத்துள்ளார்.

You may also like...