R. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case was filed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No. 13279 of 2017 in Crime No. 220 of 2016, on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team-III, Vepery, Chennai, by order dated 06.09.2017. The revision petitioners against whom, the case was registered by the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 65 & 66 of Information Technology Act and under Sections 408, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477(A) of IPC, had moved petitions for anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P. Nos. 3611 and 4176 of 2017. The said petitions were dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 05.07.2017 where, the learned Judge has traced the facts of the case, which are re-produced hereunder for easy reference:

"The defacto complainant in this case is one Soundarrajan, Company Secretary & Compliance Officer of Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited (hereinafter called as the Company). It is the business of the Company to manage the financial portfolio of their clients, for which the company had appointed four named persons, as authorised signatories, who were empowered to enter into individual agreements with clients for managing their finances. Since the clients are not conversant with the nitty gritty of share transaction they would make available their finance with the company and would rely upon the wisdom of the company in making investments. The four authorised signatories were permitted to have Demat account on behalf of the clients for the purpose of share transactions. Decisions will be taken on behalf of the clients by the company and the money that is kept in trust belonging to the client will be used "or purchase of shares and debentures. While so, Priya, Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 3611 of 2017 was appointed as Manager-Customer Relations some time in the year 2006 and she knew the business activities of the company. One Balaji Vaidyanathan, a colleague of Priya abruptly left the company some time in the year 2014 and the Company suspected that Priaya has shared some confidential information with the said Balaji Vaidyanathan, as he had joined their competitor. Therefore, the services of Priya was terminated. Thereafter, when the laptop provided to her by the company was scrutinised, it revealed startling information, it was found that Priya had opened two accounts in the name of S.V. Consultants and Sun Shine Associates and those two companies were started in the name of her brother, namely, Vincent and her mother, Juliet, Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 4176 of 2017. Further, enquiry conducted by the company revealed that Priya had issued instructions in the name of the four authorised signatories to transfer monies of the clients amounting to Rs. 1,29,00,000/- to the said account over a period of time and thus, siphoned off the amount. Hence, the FIR."

"From the records produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is seen that the complaint in this case has been submitted by Sundaram Asset Management Company to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 09.03.2016, as could be seen from the date seal of the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the matter was referred to Commissioner of Police on the same day for enquiry. As usual, the police were dragging their feet without registering the FIR and ultimately they registered FIR only on 01.09.2016. Perhaps they would have made preliminary enquiry before registration of the same.

If viewed in this background, Priya has given the complaint before National Commission for Women only on 11.03.2016 and the allegation made in her complaint that she had left her company's laptop in her desktop, which was misused by the company, does not cut ice with this Court. The Police have filed a detailed counter, wherein it is shown that out of a sum of Rs. 6,24,00,000/- Priya has purchased immovable properties in various places in Anna