Madras High Court
N.Vanathan vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 6 October, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5907 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 06.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5907 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.3395 & 3396 of 2021
N.Vanathan,
Clerk,
R963, Thulaiyanatham Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Credit Society,
Trichy District. ... Petitioner/4th Accused
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Commercial Crime Investigation Wing,
Vilupuram (In-charge),
Thanjavur Sub-Division. ... Respondent/Complainant
2.The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Crime Investigation Wing,
Tiruchirappalli.
(Reg: Crime No.1/2014) ... Respondent/Complainant
3.K.Athmanathan,
The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Musiri Circle,
Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5907 of 2021
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in C.C.No.104 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Musiri and quash the charge sheet and consequential all further
proceedings as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraya Sethupathi
for Mr.D.Senthil
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in
C.C.No.104 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri.
2. (i) The case of the prosecution is that while the first and second
accused were working in the Thulaiyanatham Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Credit Society, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District, they had
forged the documents and misappropriated the funds of the Society. So, the
Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, directed the Co-operative
Sub Registrar, to conduct a statutory enquiry, under Section 81 of the
Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act. As per the direction of the above
said Deputy Registrar, an enquiry was conducted by the Co-operative Sub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5907 of 2021
Registrar and he also submitted a report. From the report, it was found that
the then Secretary and the other employees of the Society, forged the
documents and misappropriated the funds of the Society.
(ii) On the basis of the above said report, the third respondent lodged
a complaint before the second respondent police. Based upon which,
investigation has been undertaken by filing the First Information Report and
a final report was also filed by adding the petitioner in the above said
criminal offence.
3. Challenging the above said final report, this petition is filed solely
on the ground that during the relevant period of misappropriation, the
petitioner was not working in the above said Thulaiyanatham Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District,
and he was on other duty. Further, none of the statements that have been
recorded during the course of investigation implicated the involvement of
the petitioner.
4.Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5907 of 2021
5. On going through the records and after hearing the learned counsel
for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has
been unnecessarily victimized for no fault of him. He became the whistle-
blower. Soon after rejoining in the concerned Society, he did exposed and
informed the higher officials about the misdeeds that have been committed
by the persons, who were in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Society.
Twice he has been placed under suspension for no fault of him as mentioned
earlier and he was forced to approach this Court, by way of filing
WP(MD).No.16151 of 2015 seeking quashment of suspension order, dated
12.08.2015, and the same was quashed by this Court, by order, dated
31.01.2018 stating that the petitioner cannot be suspended for the second
time on the same set of facts. Ultimately, the proceedings that have been
initiated against the petitioner alleging that he failed in his duty to inform
the higher officials about the misdeeds of the co-accused and actively
connived with them in the whole process.
6. The simple case of the petitioner is that the alleged transaction took
place from 25.07.2007 to 10.09.2013. This petitioner was on other duty
from 25.07.2007 to 31.03.2010. Similarly from 01.04.2010 to 07.02.2013,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5907 of 2021
he was working in Thumbalam Preliminary Agricultural Co-operative
Society. On 08.02.2013, only he rejoined in the present Society. So, his case
before the disciplinary proceedings is that he was in no way responsible for
connivance with the other accused persons, during the course of forgery,
misdeeds etc., from 25.07.2007 to 10.09.2013.
7.The Enquiry Officer after going through all the records and
evidence, came to a conclusion that only the petitioner brought to light of
the above said misdeeds after joining in the Society. It is also been held that
it is very unfortunate that the person, who exposed the misdeed, has been
victimised for his honesty. While so, he has to be discharged from the
charges, that has been framed against him.
8. As mentioned earlier, he has been suspended for the second time
and the same was also set aside. So, when there is a categorical finding by
the Disciplinary Authorities to the effect that during the relevant time, the
petitioner was not working in the Society, then how the final report came to
be filed against the petitioner, adding him under Sections 408, 467, 465,
468, 471, 477A & 120 (b) IPC r/w 34 IPC, absolutely, there is no material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5907 of 2021
on record to show that he actively connived with the co-accused persons for
committing the above said offence.
9. As mentioned earlier, he was not at all in the picture during the
relevant period. It appears that by mechanical application of mind, the final
report came to be filed.
10. I am of the considered view that it is a fittest case to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner, without going into the other aspects that
has been raised by the petitioner and without referring to the judgment, cited
by him.
11. Accordingly, the charge sheet in C.C.No.104 of 2016, on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, is hereby quashed and the
Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.10.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5907 of 2021
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Musiri.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Commercial Crime Investigation Wing,
Vilupuram (In-charge),
Thanjavur Sub-Division.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Crime Investigation Wing,
Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5907 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5907 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.3395 & 3396 of 2021
06.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
