Advocates:
['M/S J JAWAHAR', '', 'K JAYAVARTHINI', 'AMALA INIYA RAJ', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

Crl.R.C.No.642 of 2022

and Crl.M.P.Nos.6724, 6726 and 10513 of 2022

Crl.R.C.No.642 of 2022

and Crl.M.P.Nos.6724, 6726 and 10513 of 2022

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

Today, the matter is posted under the caption "for being mentioned".

2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, pointing out

to the sentence in paragraph No.2 i.e., "As far as the petitioner is concerned, he

is the chartered Accountant, who was looking after the income tax filed by both

the spouses", would submit that there is an error in recording the statement.

3. He has actually submitted that "As far as the petitioner is concerned, he

is the Chartered Accountant, who was looking after the income tax accounts of

the Company, in which, accused No.2 was working" and accordingly, he prays

that necessary correction should be made.

4. But, however, the learned Counsel appearing for the de-facto

complainant would submit that already, against the said order, a Special Leave

Petition is filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

5. Therefore, when the order was passed on 05.08.2022 and now, when a

Page No.1/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.642 of 2022

and Crl.M.P.Nos.6724, 6726 and 10513 of 2022

Special Leave Petition is filed, this Court cannot make any correction at this

stage.

02.12.2022

grs

Page No.2/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.642 of 2022

and Crl.M.P.Nos.6724, 6726 and 10513 of 2022

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs

Crl.R.C.No.642 of 2022

and Crl.M.P.Nos.6724, 6726 and 10513 of 2022

Page No.3/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.642 of 2022

and Crl.M.P.Nos.6724, 6726 and 10513 of 2022

02.12.2022

Page No.4/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Orders Reserved on : 25.07.2022

Orders Pronounced on : 05.08.2022

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Crl.R.C.No.642 of 2022

R.Seshadri

.. Petitioner

Versus

State rep. by the

Inspector of Police,

Central Crime Branch,

CCB-II, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

.. Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to

call for the records and set aside the order, dated 18.04.2022 passed in

Crl.M.P.No.1475 of 2020 in C.C.No.876 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur and thus allow this Criminal Revision.

For Petitioner

: Mr.K.P.Anantha Krishna

For Respondent

: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

For Intervenor

: Mr.B.K.Girish Neelakantan

(Crl.M.P.No.10513 of 2022)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

ORDER

This Revision is filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.I, Alandur, dated 18.04.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.1475 of 2020 in C.C.No.876 of

2020, in and by which, the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him from the case,

is negatived.

2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit

that this is a case where the de-facto complainant/wife and the first

accused/husband are in conflict and in the said course of family conflict between

them, the present complaint is lodged on the allegation that the first accused, in this

case, namely Venkateswaran, had logged into her income tax account and

downloaded her returns and gained into her personal details and had even produced

it before the Court as evidence. In that context, a case was registered and after

investigation, now a Final Report is filed for the offence under Section 66 read

with Section 43 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. As far as

the petitioner is concerned, he is the Chartered Accountant, who was looking after

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the income tax filed by both the spouses. It is from the office of the

petitioner/accused No.4, the first accused had accessed the income tax account and

has got the details.

3. The case of the petitioner in the discharge a