IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. '^J[C1 / 2010 PETITCONER ^.^•"^ -^-•^^:' ' f^ Smt. Seema Malhotra, wife of Vikas \s- Malhotra, aged about 40 years, R/o. .^""^ ",:,."•" ^ ••••"""."-'_"^"!'" •::-.-;'y'^':'^. ^<'IT:.'.:'''^€^r/v- <:<y • u ' ^ VERSUS A-38, IInd Floor, Chandar Nagar, Janakpuri, belhi. RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through : City Kotwali, Raipur, Distn'ct Raipur (C.G.). APPLICATEON UN&ER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE The petitioner begs to submit as under:- T ^if'fi^i l^ ift" 1 '%^:-y ^/y ''&s=insff^<(^ '^t VI h-H* Wi 311^1 Sll1 WWIT a»*ii<!»» 75^ ^fWM^, ®flly<l(o,fs|MI'M14,< . C>-.'H,(>,N^^5/Zo|0 ^gp....^......4.^..^.:^.....:..—.{.......^200 3fI^T XRaK (•iql^q^) TOIIW ^lftd 311^1 SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan S 04-10-2010 Shri'Shailendra Singh along ^ petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advoc^te forthe State. Heard. This petition has been filed u quashing proceedings under Section 91 Cil|y Learned oounsel for the petitii allegation of embezzlement against Limited, the Polioe of Police Station against the Directors and Officers of < investigated, inthecoureeofwhich, Im Section 91 ofthe Cr.P.C. to the p^itio with required information/documents. to the said notice, the petitioner (Annexure P-1) disclosing information ? Learned counsel for the petitic^ the police official had come to the petitioner is being harassed requiring submitted that as the relevant informa been disclosed, the requirement of noti ofthe Cr.P.C. shall be deemed to have Section 91(2) of the Cr.P.C. He si provisions contained in Section 91 of °bl^[d4l'1 iw<nf'^ k^ ^T^K ^iffilH 3)1^1 hnvastaya, J. ith Shri R. S. Patel, counsel for the nder Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for oftheCr.P.C. againstthe petitioner. i|3ner argued that in connection with |s Adviance Infra and Basic Amenities Kotwali, Raipur has registered F.1. R. jhe Company and the matter is being ('estigating Agency sent a notice under )ier to remain present in pereon along is further submitted that in response SL|bmitted her reply dated 18-09-2010 livailable with the petitioner. |ier argued that the manner in which resiitfenoe of the petitioner, shows that the lerto disolose information. It is further tion available with the petitioner have i|3e under sub-sartion (1) ofSection 91 t been complied with in compliance of Ibmits that after compiiance of the |he Cr.P.C., the police authority could I'Mi.-. !!».^';i!TT.»-'-FIS;147—2-2flin -!,00,000. T '~F" 3D^'?I ^it f<-f WltTI^I aiii'o Tiffnane ^^ <ir*Tp(( 9»*ii<t» T°? T^w\'!i, &^ww, [sfwvy. . Cr^t^^^\Zo\v ^...........»......^...........;..^...^...^.^^QQ Sf^V 'T^T ('j'lt^l'^) 8WIW ^ci 3TI^T *~~L-/ not insist the petitioner to remain pres^nt in person befbre the Police Station in oonnection with the investigation. Sdate b^ng caurse On the other hand, leamed petition has been filed without there as the pollce authoritles durtng the underSection 91 oftheCr.P.C. onthd reply. He submits that the petitione^ Investigating Agency hastaten any aoljion of the petitioner. From the submissions made by| the material placed on record, it is founjl Cr.P.C. was issued by the Investigatint for the reason that the petitioner i^ information as Company Secretary oftt|at. investigation purposre. In ttie absenc^ taken by the Investigating Agency agaijist petitioner at present has any cause However, it would be open for the petftji remedy as may be available to her undj arise. chl^[<'l4l'1 *TT^<nf^f fs*<l <Pll^i< ^aifiiHsn^i counsel submits that the instant any causefor.the same inasmuch of investigation served a notice petitioner and she has submitted her is neither made an accused nor adverse or prejudjcial to the rights learned counsel for the petitioner and that a notice under Section 91 ofthe Agency to the petitioner, apparentty said to be possessed of certain Company, whioh is required for the of any adverse action having been the petitioner, 1 do not find that the for being agitated before this Court. tioner to take recoureelo such legal ^r the law, as and when occasion may With the aforesaid obser/ation, t^ie petition is finally djsposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge a"SiQ!l i?t5fl^ .uCTT""T, !WI"ipTi.T - '-FS,'!47—2?010 -!,00,000.