The petitioner has come up with the present criminal original petition to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.279 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram Namakal District.
2. The short fact of the case of the petitioner is that he works as a Manager in Indian Bank. While so in the year 2004 when the petitioner was working as Manager in Athanoor branch in Namakkal District, panel of appraisers from Salem Main Indian bank branch made a surprise visit to the Athanoor branch for re appraisal of jewels offered for loan. During their re-appraisal they found that 22 bags of jewels pledged in Athanoor branch were spurious in nature. Immediately, a departmental inquiry was conducted for the above. In the inquiry the appraiser of the bank namely Mr.M.Ranganathan confessed that he arranged some account holders in their branch for getting loan on pledging fake jewels from their account and received the loan money from the account holders at the same day, as such he cheated the bank to the tune of Rs.5,68,950/-.
3. For which the petitioner herein has preferred a complaint before the respondent police and a FIR in Crime No.51 dated 25.09.2004 Under Sections 406, 420, 477(A) of IPC came to be registered against the responsible and incharge apprising the gold jewels offered by the customers for pledging. However, shockingly the respondent police chose to lay down charge sheet in CC.No.279 of 2010 on the file of the judicial magistrate Rasipuram, by arraying the petitioner herein as the accused No.2, on holding that the above pledging of spurious gold by the 1st accused Mr.Ranganathan was aided by the petitioner herein. The said charge leveled as against the petitioner is baseless and the same is totally contrary to the statements made by all the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Without incriminating materials against the petitioner the charge sheet is being laid, which is sheer abuse of process of Law and the same is liable to be quashed.
4. I heard Mr.C.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the entire records.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has examined 11 witnesses pertaining to the spurious jewel loan, whereas none of them have spoken any incriminating statement as against the petitioner. All the witnesses have categorically stated as to how the spurious jewel was pledged by the 1st accused Ranganathan through them. It would be relevant to be note that all the witnesses have clearly deposed that the 1st accused has solely made them to pledge the spurious jewels in their bank accounts. However without citing any witness and without basing upon any incriminating document, the respondent has filed a charge sheet by implicating the petitioner herein as the 2nd accused. Therefore the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has arranged bogus gold covering jewels and by making use of the bogus jewels the accused A1 and A2 created false jewel loan documents purported to be submitted by the witnesses and connected bank records by obtaining the signatures of the witnesses on false pretext, only considering the same the petitioner was arrayed as 2nd accused and charged with the offences under Sections 406, 420, 477(A) of IPC.
7. On careful perusal of the records, it is found that the respondent has examined 11 witnesses pertaining to the spurious jewel loan. From the statements enclosed in the typed set of papers it is revealed that none of the witnesses have made any incriminating statement as against the petitioner, who is the accused No.2 in this case. In fact the petitioner name is non-traceable through the statements deposed by the witnesses.
accused has solely made them to pledge the spurious jewels in their bank accounts, since the 1st accused is acquainted with the witnesses.
8. It is further seen that there is no any confession statement made by the 1st accused implicating the petitioner herein. At this juncture the attention of this Court was drawn to the statement of A-1 made during the department enquiry, which is enclosed in page No.33 of the typed set of papers that the 1st accused Ranganathan himself has involved all the above said mischiefs because of the financial crisis faced by his family. Further it is noticed that he has requested and made the above witnesses to pledge the spurious jewel into their accounts. Since the 1st accused remained the appraiser to appraise the gold jewels, he has fraudulently appraised the fake jewels as if they were original.
9. Whereas, on repeated perusal of the case records this Court is not in a position to trace even single incriminating material against the petitioner. Further without citing any witness and without basing upon any incriminating document, the respondent has filed a charge sheet charging the petitioner for the offence punishable Under Sections 406, 420, 477(A) of IPC.
10. In the light of the discussion made above, this Court has no hesitation to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.279 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram Namakal District and accordingly it is quashed.
11. In the result:
(a) this Criminal Original Petition is allowed;
(b) the proceedings in C.C.No.279 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Namakkal District, is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.06.2017 Note:Issue order copy on 10.08.2017 Internet : Yes Index : Yes vs To The Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.
vs Crl.O.P No.14976 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 21.06.2017