N.S.Karthick, (Male/25 Years) v. State Represented By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.11.2021 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR CRL.O.P.NO.11000 OF 2017 AND CRL.M.P.NOS.7267 & 7268 OF 2017 N.S.Karthick S/o.Sekar ... Petitioner
Versus
The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Villupuram.
(Crime No.1 of 2014) ... Respondent PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10 of 2014 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram. For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy For Respondent ... Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar For Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10 of 2014 insofar as the petitioner is concerned, who has been arrayed as third accused for the alleged offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 of Chit Fund Act, 1982.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/ accused along with his parents collected amounts to the tune of
about Rs.3,00,000/- from the witnesses and conducted an unregistered chit and the amount has not been repaid.
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been roped in merely because he is the son of A1 and A2. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was a student at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that even in the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, allegations were made only against A1 and A2 and not against A3 and therefore, A3 is noway connected with the offences and charge against the petitioner has to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State Public Prosecutor has not seriously disputed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. I perused the First Information Report, Charge Sheet and other materials placed before this Court in the form of a typedset of papers. The First Information Report indicates that as if all the three accused were jointly conducting unregistered chit, collected money from various persons and cheated the public. The same also indicates that the witnesses were regular subscribers for the last ten years and the allegations prima facie indicate that they were subscribing the amount with A1 and A2 for the last 10 years. The statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating officer indicate that the amounts have been paid only at the instance of A1 and A2, who are parents of the petitioner. Nowhere, it is stated by the witnesses that A3 conducted the chit individually. The fact that the present petitioner was a student is also not disputed by the prosecution. To support such contention, School Certificate and Transfer Certificate are also placed before me, which is also not disputed by the prosecution.
7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the allegations in the First Information Report and the statements of witnesses indicate that only A1 and A2 appears to have collected the amount towards chit. Therefore, prosecution of A3 is sheer waste of time and abuse of process of law.
8. In such view of the matter, the instant criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.10 of 2014 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram is quashed against A3 alone.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gpa To 1.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.
2. The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Villupuram.
3.
The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate, S.R.No.58299 CRL.O.P.NO.11000 OF 2017 AND CRL.M.P.NOS.7267 & 7268 OF 2017 RLD(CO) PBS/22/11/2021