(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in C.C.No.7 of 2026 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act cases, Madurai and quash same.)

1. The present petition has been filed by the accused Nos.2, 3 and 10 in C.C.No.7 of 2026 on the file of the Special Court under the TNPID Act at Madurai, seeking to quash the charge sheet wherein they stand charged with offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act.

2. As borne out by the charge sheet, two financial establishments, namely Sangamam Chit Funds and Sangamam Benefit Funds, collected fixed deposits from the general public holding out a promise of interest at the rate of 18% to 22% per annum. There having been default in the repayment of interest as also the principal, a large number of complaints came to be received against the accused, the aggregate claim being in the region of Rs. 1.22 crores. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein are the Directors of the company, while the third petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that petitioners 1 and 2 are the Directors of Sangamam Benefit Funds, whereas the complaint has been lodged only as against Sangamam Chit Funds, and that the complaint is therefore not maintainable. He would further submit that none of the statements of the alleged depositors recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. implicates petitioners 1 and 2, who stand arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3. It was also submitted that a sum of Rs.57 lakhs has already been settled between the parties, that there is every prospect of the dispute being amicably resolved, and that a stay of the proceedings would facilitate such settlement.

4. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the third petitioner was never concerned with the day-to-day affairs of the financial establishment and that Section 5 of the TNPID Act is consequently not attracted to her case. She is aged 75 years, is neither a Director nor in any manner associated with the administration of the company, and is unaware of its workings; she has, it is contended, been roped in solely by reason of her being the mother of the first petitioner. He would add that none of the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. implicates the third petitioner, and accordingly prayed that the charge sheet be quashed as against the petitioners.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that complaints have been received from a large section of the general public, the claims aggregating to Rs.1.22 crores, of which not a single paise has been settled by the petitioners. He would submit that most of the statements recorded from the witnesses clearly implicate petitioners 1 and 2 in their capacity as Directors of the company, and that the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of some of the witnesses implicate the third petitioner as well. Placing reliance upon the memorandum of association of the company and the communications received from the Registrar of Companies, he sought to demonstrate that the third petitioner has subscribed to the shares of the company. He further placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.881 of 2022 (Sulochana vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Chennai) dated 04.08.2022, wherein, in similar circumstances, this Court was pleased to dismiss the petition holding that being a mere subscriber would not by itself exonerate a party from proceedings under the TNPID Act. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material records.

7. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the first petitioner is the Managing Director, the second petitioner is a Director, and the third petitioner is shown as the Joint Director of Sangamam Benefit Fund, arrayed as the 10th accused. As per the charge sheet, they collected substantial sums from the customers upon an assurance of interest at the rate of 18% to 22%, the amount so collected being to the extent of Rs.1.22 crores.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no specific overt act is attributed to petitioners 1 and 2, who are respectively the Managing Director and the Director of the company. However, under Section 5 of the TNPID Act, every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the establishment is liable to be proceeded against.

9. The statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from some of the witnesses disclose the role played by petitioners 1 and 2. This Court is therefore not persuaded by the submissions advanced on behalf of petitioners 1 and 2 (A2 and A3). Insofar as the third petitioner (A10) is concerned, it is urged that she is a lady aged 75 years, that there exists no post such as Joint Director as alleged in the charge sheet, and that no property stands purchased in her name.

10. A perusal of the statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. of L.W. 21, L.W.22 and L.W.23 discloses that the third petitioner (A10) has also been implicated by the customers. Further, the registration particulars furnished by the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, reveal that she has subscribed to the shares of the company. A similar contention advanced before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.881 of 2022 (Sulochana vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Chennai) came to be rejected by order dated 04.08.2022.

11. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to countenance the contention urged on behalf of the third petitioner either. The observations and findings herein are confined to the disposal of the above quash petition alone, and the trial Court shall dispose of the criminal case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced thereby. Having regard to the age of the third petitioner (A10), her personal appearance shall stand dispensed with, unless specifically directed otherwise by the trial Court.

12. In the light of the above deliberations, the petition is devoid of merits and this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.