(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to Crime No.542 of 2023 on the file of 1st respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioner.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to Crime No.542 of 2023 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that there was a business and financial dispute between the second respondent and the petitioner's husband / A2, relating to investments, loans and property transactions for the period from 2009 to 2023, culminating in an alleged mortgage transaction with the Federal Bank, Anna Nagar and subsequent threats. On the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant / R2, a case in Crime No.542 of 2023 has been registered, alleging offences under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471, 420, 294(b), 307 & 506 (ii) of IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, against the three accused, out of whom, the petitioner is A3, who is the wife of A2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no specific or individual role or overtact attributed to the petitioner in the complaint given by the defacto complainant. The dispute is civil in nature, but has been given a criminal colour and the complaint given by the defacto complainant is a counterblast and registered with malafide intention. The learned counsel would further submit that on going through the complaint given by the defacto complainant / R2, the Court could notice that there are only general allegations against the petitioner and she was not involved in any of the transactions, loans, investments and execution of documents etc. The petitioner / A3 is the wife of A2, but, there was no involvement of the petitioner in the transaction between A2 and the second respondent. However, the defacto complainant had implicated the petitioner as the third accused in the complaint soly because she is the wife of A2. The learned counsel would also contend that for any of the offences against the petitioner, no material has been placed by the defacto complainant and the complaint itself does not disclose any material to attract the offences as alleged. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner / A3 are liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that it is the contention of the defacto complainant that A2 and A3 had induced the defacto complainant to invest in their business and made a false representation with dishonest intention, resulting in delivery of property, created false documents and used the forged documents for the purpose of cheating the defacto complainant. Further, the accused persons had uttered filthy or obscene words against the defacto complainant and threatened to kill him and also attempted to commit murder and they were also been charged with the commission of offences that they were in possession of a firearm during the alleged commission of offences. Therefore, the case against all three accused has been registered in Crime No.542 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471, 420, 294(b), 307 & 506 (ii) of IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. The defacto complainant, in his complaint, had clearly stated about the involvement and participation of the petitioner / A3 and therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner need not be quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the defacto complainant had clearly mentioned about the overtact of the petitioner / A3, in the commission of the alleged offences. The petitioner along with her husband / A2, met the defacto complainant and induced him to invest in their business. The petitioner, her husband, the defacto complainant and his wife, jointly obtained a loan. A1 to A3 colluded together and fabricated the documents. The first accused had signed the papers and gave them to the defacto complainant and his wife. The bank issued the notice to R2 and thereafter only, he came to know that he had been cheated by the accused A1 to A3, and thereby, the defacto complainant had preferred a complaint to R1 and the case was registered. The investigation is almost over and the final report is yet to be filed. Therefore, the petition to quash the criminal proceedings is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard both sides and perused the documents and materials available on record.

7. A perusal of the complaint would clearly reveal that there were allegations against A1 to A3 and in specific, as against the petitioner, there were only three or four allegations attributed by the defacto complainant, and those specific allegations are that:

                   (i) The petitioner and her husband invited the second respondent to invest in A2’s proprietary concern in 2009.

                   (ii) That they informed the second respondent about the construction contract in 2020, for which, they were in need of Rs.4,00,00,000/- and they have suggested to mortgage the properties purchased in the name of the defacto complainant and A2 Srinivasan and if the project goes well, they can retrieve the invested amount in full. Believing the same, the defacto complainant handed over the original documents and created a memorandum of deposit of title deeds, signed by himself and his wife as guarantors.

8. The other allegation against the petitioner / A3 is that when the defacto complainant enquired with the Federal Bank, Anna Nagar Branch on 26.12.2022, in person, he came to know that A2 Srinivasan and his wife, the petitioner / A3, had forged the signature of the defacto complainant and his wife, and obtained a loan and also subsequent specific acts including the mortgage, the alleged forgery at Federal Bank, the meetings at Sriram Park, the summons to the residence and the alleged confrontation at gun point on 21.05.2023 and 22.05.2023 are attributed solely to A1 and A2.

9. The complaint did not disclose the fact that the petitioner had been present and participated in any of the specific incidents. It is well settled that the general allegations without disclosing and specifying the role played by the accused in the commission of the alleged offence, cannot form the basis for prosecution, particularly, if a family member is implicated merely on the basis of relationship. It has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Bharthi Devi Vs. State of Telangana, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 384, which reads as follows:

                   “12. Therefore, the only question would be, as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present appellants would be justified or not.

                   13. At the outset, we may state that we are only considering the cases only of two women i.e. Accused Nos.3 and 4, who are wives of original accused Nos.2 and 1 respectively.

                   14 to 35 …………….

                   36. In any case, as discussed hereinabove, both the appellants have been arraigned as wives of the accused Nos.1 and 2. The specific role that was attributed in the chargesheet was pertaining to Accused No.1.

                   37. In the result, we find that this was a fit case wherein the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the criminal proceedings.”

10. In yet another case in Kahkashan Kausar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

                   “18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

                   19 & 20 …….

                   21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.”

11. The above said judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the present case. There are also several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court upholding the above principle. Mere reference to the petitioner along with her husband, without attributing any specific act or role to her, does not meet the prima facie threshold for sustaining her prosecution.

12. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute between accused 1 to 3 and the defacto complainant is civil in nature and that the dispute has been given a criminal colour. On going through the complaint, this Court finds that all the allegations with regard to the commission of the alleged offences are general in nature, insofar as the petitioner / A3 is concerned. Since the petitioner / A3 has come forward with this petition to quash the criminal proceedings against her, this Court is not expected to go into the allegations against all the other accused and if the Court goes into detail regarding the contention as to whether the dispute is civil in nature, it has to consider the allegations against the rest of the accused also. This Court is of the opinion that there is no specific allegation to attract the offences as alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, even though the dispute may be civil in nature, the contention that the dispute has been given a criminal colour cannot be considered in the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioner.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner's husband / A2 and the second respondent had been carrying out financial transactions and business dealings since 2009 and they had been engaged in long-standing transactions extending over several years. However, there is no specific allegation that the petitioner had made any representation and induced the second respondent to part with any money or property or participated in any alleged forgery or fraudulent transaction. Furthermore, the petitioner is not even a party to the business transaction, loan or mortgage. Against the petitioner, the complaint is silent on any independent transaction.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his allegation, would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.M.Mohan Vs. State represented by SHO & Anr., reported in (2024) 12 SCC 181, and stated that the petitioner / A3 had been implicated as an accused only because she is the wife of the second accused, Srinivasan. Though she was in no way related to any accusation, in order to put additional pressure on A2, the petitioner has been implicated as the accused in the case filed by the defacto complainant.

15. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no nexus between the petitioner and the disputed transaction or settlement between A2 and the second respondent and therefore, the petitioner cannot be implicated in the case for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471 IPC. In order to make out a prima facie case for those offences, there is no specific allegation in the complaint itself against the petitioner and there are only general allegations that A2 and A3 had invited the defacto complainant to invest in their business and informed him about the construction contract in 2020 and suggested to mortgage the property of the defacto complainant. However, the petitioner is neither a party to the alleged transaction nor there is any specific allegation demonstrating her knowledge of any fraudulent act. There is also no specific overtact or material connecting the petitioner / A3 with the alleged offences and the entire allegation against the petitioner is only general and omnibus.

16. In respect of the commission of offences under Section 419 of IPC, the complaint does not attribute any act of inducement, representation, deception, or personation to the petitioner. The complaint reveals that the entire narrative relating to the investment, remittance of monies and subsequent mortgage concerns transactions between A2 and the defacto complainant. It is not the case of the defacto complainant that the petitioner had impersonated any person, represented herself to be another person, induced him to part with any property or acted with dishonest intention at the inception of any transaction. Therefore, the Court cannot hold that there is a prima facie allegation against the petitioner to establish the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC.

17. Likewise, in respect of the offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC., it has been alleged by the defacto complainant that the signatures of the defacto complainant and his wife were forged for obtaining an additional loan of Rs.3 crores from Federal Bank Anna Nagar, Chennai. There is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner had made or executed any document in the name of the second respondent and his wife, altered or tampered with any document or obtained any document by practising deception.

18. It is not the contention of the defacto complainant in the complaint that the petitioner had signed the alleged forged document or caused any such document to be prepared. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the foundational requirement of making a false document has not been disclosed in the complaint against the petitioner. Insofar as the offence under Section 471 of IPC is concerned, the complaint of the defacto complainant contains no allegation that the petitioner knowing fully well about the forged document, had used the said document as genuine and therefore, the offences under Section 465, 468 and 471 of IPC are also not attracted and there is no prima facie case at all against the petitioner.

19. In respect of the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of the IPC, on going through the complaint, the Court could find that absolutely there is no word whispered against the petitioner, as if she had abused the defacto complainant with filthy language in a public place and it caused annoyance to others and she had threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences.

20. Even there is no general allegation against the petitioner to prima facie make out a case for those offences, the only allegation in the complaint which is connected with Section 307 IPC is the alleged confrontation at gunpoint on 22.05.2023 and the said allegation is attributed only against A1 Venkatesan and A2 Srinivasan. It is also the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was neither present at the scene of occurrence nor she had possessed any firearm or uttered any threat or participated in any act in furtherance of common intention with A1 and A2. As such, there is no allegation at all against the petitioner /A3 in respect of the offence under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the complaint does not disclose the basic requirement to prima facie make out a case under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, against the petitioner / A3.

21. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint and the other materials do not disclose any prima facie case to establish the offences as alleged against the petitioner / A3. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court could exercise inherent jurisdiction sparingly, but, when the complaint and the other materials placed before the Court do not disclose a prima facie case against the person concerned, permitting the criminal prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of law and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal prosecution has to be quashed.

22. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.542 of 2023 are quashed in respect of the petitioner alone. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.