(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Crl.P.C., to call for the records in SC.NO.2/2024 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District and quash the same against the petitioner herein. CRL

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Crl.P.C., to call for the records in Spl.SC No.2/2024 on the file of the Honble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District and quash the same.

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Crl.P.C., to call for the records in Spl.SC No.2/2024 on the file of the Honble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District and quash the same.)

Common Order

1. Since the issue involved in these cases are interlinked and related to Spl.SC No.2 of 2024, all the cases are taken up together and a common order is being passed.

2. These petitions have been filed to quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.2 of 2024 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari. There are totally 13 accused involved in this case and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17442 of 2024 is arrayed as A.5, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15692 of 2024 is arrayed as A.8 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17436 of 2026 is arrayed as A.12 and they are charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 465, 468, 471, 477A and 120(b) of IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused, while working as Deputy Commissioner / Executive Officer, in HR and CE Department, Suchindram from 07.06.2004 to 30.11.2006 and 12 others, who are not public servants, working temporarily in various posts, colluded with each other and misappropriated temple funds to the tune of Rs.2,96,017/- by producing forged bills in Paditharam and Thiruvizha during the years 2004 to 2006. The preliminary enquiry was conducted and revealed that all the accused had misappropriated the temple funds to the tune of Rs.2,96,017/- by producing forged bills.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are arrayed as A.5, A.8 and A.12, A.5 was working as cashier and A.8 and A.12 are working in the Temple in several posts. Even according to the case of the prosecution, A.1 only handed over all the cheques in favour of other accused persons to encash the same. The 5th accused being cashier, encashed the cheques and thereafter, entire cash amount was handed over to the 1st accused on three occasions. There were totally 19 cheques, in which one cheque was encashed on 11.05.2006, 13 cheques were encashed on 28.04.2006 and the remaining cheques were encashed on 10.05.2006.

                     4.1. Even according to the case of prosecution, in order to attract any other offence as against the petitioners, no oral and documentary evidences were produced by the prosecution to substantiate the charges. The charge sheet also lacks bonafide and it is lodged with malafide intention. Even the allegations made against the petitioners would not attract any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The entire allegations are fake, false and do not constitute any offence and the entire allegations are made as against the 1st accused and the petitioners have nothing to do with A.1, hence the entire proceedings would tantamount to malafide and abuse of process of law.

                     4.2. That apart, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, mainly relied upon the statement of L.W.2, Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE of Kanyakumari District, who deposed that the 1st accused fabricated the bill and documents and informed the accused A.6 to A.13 to come to office to sign the same. As per the said bills, the 1st accused sanctioned the bill amount by issuance of the cheques and the cheques were directed to be counter signed to encash the same. All the cheques were encashed by the cashier to the tune of Rs.2,96,017/- and the entire amount was given to the 1st accused. He also relied upon statements of L.Ws.7 to 9, who are shop owners and the bills of the years 2004 to 2006 were shown to them on 07.01.2022, they deposed that those bills were not issued by them and those bills do not belong to their shops. Even according to the case of the prosecution, all the bills were prepared by the 1st accused and the other accused persons were compelled and threatened to sign the same to claim those amounts, therefore, they had nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. So far as the 5th accused is concerned, whenever the cheques were produced, the said cheques were enchased and handed over to the respective persons.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that all the accused persons are charged for the offences under Section 120(b) of IPC. Even according to the accused, they did not dispute the signatures found in the bills and other documents. As per the bills and other documents, the accused claimed their respective expenses before the 1st accused and in turn, the 1st accused sanctioned the bill amount by issuing cheques. Thereafter, the accused persons counter signed the same and produced before the 5th accused, Cashier to encash those cheques. The 5th accused returned the entire amount to the 1st accused and all the accused shared the said amount with the 1st accused. Therefore, there are clinching evidences to attract offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 465, 468, 471, 477A and 120(b) of IPC as against the accused, therefore, at this stage, it is premature to quash the entire proceedings as against the accused, the grounds raised by the accused can be considered by the trial court only by letting in evidence, thereby pleaded to dismiss the petitions.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the entire documents placed on record.

7. Admittedly, there are 13 accused involved in this case, in which the petitioners are arrayed as A.5, A.8 and A.12. A.5 is working as a cashier and A.8 and A.12 are staffs. The 1st accused was working as Deputy Commissioner of HR &CE, Suchindram, Kanyakumari district. Due to audit object, there was preliminary enquiry and as per preliminary enquiry, a sum of Rs.2,96,017/- was misappropriated by the accused by producing forged bills in Paditharam and Thiruvizha. On 27.03.2018, the FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(C) of Prevention of Corruption Act,r/w 109 IPC and Sections 167, 465, 468, 471, 477-A, 409 and 120(b) IPC. Initially the case has been registered as against 16 persons, after demise of some of the accused persons, the respondent filed final report as against A.1 to A.13. The allegations levelled as against the petitioners are that the 5th accused, who was cashier along with the accused Nos.8 and 12, who were staff, had fabricated the bills for the expenditure incurred during the festival and claimed the amount before the 1st accused. In turn, the 1st accused sanctioned the claim amount by issuing cheque in temple’s favour and all the cheques were counter signed by them for encashment. Thereafter, the cheques were encashed by the cashier, viz., 5th accused, in turn, the entire amount was handed over to the 1st accused. Thereafter, they shared the misappropriated amount, in order to substantiate the said allegation, the prosecution had examined List of Witnesses 1 to 27. The 1st witness is clear about the issuance of sanction of prosecution to prosecute as against the 1st accused. L.W.2, has spoken about the audit report submitted by the enquiry officer and after enquiry, it was found that there was misappropriation of Rs.2,96,018/-. L.W.7 to 9 have spoken about the fraudulent bills submitted by the accused. Except L.W.2, L.W.7 to 9 have also spoken about the specific overt act of the accused.

7.1. The L.W.2 deposed as follows :-







8. Thus it is clear that the entire bills and other records were prepared by the 1st accused in order to encash the expenditure under the fabricated bills, after preparation of bills for various expenses, the accused 6 to 13 were called upon by the 1st accused to his office and in his office, they were compelled and threatened to sign the same, as if they spent the amount in order to perform festival, without making any expenses for the temple festival. Accordingly the accused signed the respective bills and they also counter signed the cheques which were in their favour. Thereafter, all the cheques were handed over to encash the same to the 5th accused and the 5th accused being cashier, encashed the sum of Rs.2,96,017/- and the entire amount was handed over to the 1st accused.

9. In so far as statements of L.W.7 to 9, who are shop owners in various places, recorded on 07.01.2022, are concerned, they deposed that those bills were not issued by them. All the bills were prepared by the 1st accused and other accused persons were compelled and threatened to sign the same to claim the bill amounts, except those persons, no one has spoken about the role played by the petitioners herein. Therefore, in order to substantiate the charges, there is absolutely no oral and documentary evidence as against the petitioners. The continuation of trial would not serve any purpose, since there is no basis to proceed with the charges as against the petitioners. Therefore, the continuance of proceedings as against the petitioners would tantamount to malafide and abuse of process of law forcing the petitioners to undergo the rigorous of the trial.

In view of the above, the present Petitions are allowed and the entire proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2024 as against the petitioners is quashed and the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial as against the other accused in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.