SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 9751

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN
B.MARIAPPAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP.BY – Respondent


O R D E R

Petition is filed by the second accused being aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition to compound offence under Section 420 of IPC for which he is facing trial before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore in C.C.No.3573 of 2015.

2. The facts of the case appears that this petitioner along with A1 had impersonated themselves as members of DVAC and called the defacto complainant to part away Rs.5,00,000/- to keep him away from registering a case for corruption. Fearing ignominy, the defacto complainant had initially parted away Rs.2,75,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- when transferred, A1 was caught by DVAC on 12.07.2012. The name of one Mr.Ponnusamy, DSP of DVAC been misused by A1 for extorting money. Further investigation has revealed that the modus operandi of A1 is to call gullible public servant and intimidate them that he is calling from DVAC office and dropped the name of senior police official in DVAC and dishonestly induced them to pay huge money under the threat of prosecution. Already Ponnusamy, DSP has given a complaint against A1, who had impersonated himself as Krishanmoorthy, DSP attached to Vigilance and Anti Corruption. Though the defacto com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top