D.Thayananth v. State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:25.04.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.No.11180 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.5709 of 2019 1.D.Thayananth 2.D.Ranjitha 3.K.Nallendran 4.E.Priya 5.B.Praburaj 6.D.Saravanakumar 7.C.Banumathi 8.G.Sasikala ... Petitioners/Accused Vs.

1. The State by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.

2. Palanisamy ... Respondents PRAYER:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records of FIR in Crime No.19 of 2018 dated on 20.07.2018 on the file of 1st respondent herein and quash the same as against the petitioner's. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ponraj For R1 : Mr.Mohammed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor.

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the first information report in Crime No.19 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent.

2. The petitioners were arrayed as accused in Crime No.19 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 408, 465, 468, 470, 471 and 420 IPC based on the complaint given by the second respondent herein.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent is running a company in the name and style of Caape Cod Fashions and Sun Sai Creations in Tiruppur, which involves in exporting Banians to foreign countries on commission basis. The entire bank transactions of the company was dealt with the petitioner's bank Viz.,Karur Vysya Bank, Tiruppur Overseas Branch, Tiruppur. One Kirubashankar/A1, who was working as accountant and Executive Manager for the past five years and also handling bank dealings of above 2nd respondent company, forged the signature of 2nd respondent in the cheque leaves and had withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,50,70,502/-. According to the defacto complainant, the petitioners who were bank personnel have allowed the accused person A1, to encash the cheques without doing proper verification of signature of the 2nd respondent. Hence, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent as against the bank officials/the petitioners herein and a case was registered in Crime No.19 of 2018.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent police without proper investigation registered an F.I.R as against the petitioners in Crime No.19 of 2018. He further submitted that the petitioners names were not mentioned in the F.I.R. Hence, he prays to quash the F.I.R. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is going on and seeks time to complete the investigation. He further submitted the amount involved in this case is huge amount and hence he prays to dismiss the petition. 6.It is relevant to extract the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019, with regard to quashing of the criminal proceedings.

"4. The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by which process was issued. It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in support of the complaint, because the

Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or not.

5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.

......................

9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."

7. On perusal of the complaint, it is seen that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections Sections 120(B), 408, 465, 468, 470, 471 and 420 IPC. Hence, this Court does not find any merits to quash the investigation in Crime No.19 of 2018. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the 1st respondent is directed to file a

final report before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rm To

1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.N.Ponraj, Advocate, S.R.No.40976 CRL.O.P.No.11180 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.5709 of 2019 CS/14/06/2019