(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to call for records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2712 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai as against the petitioner.)

1. The prayer in this Criminal Original Petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2712 of 2017.

2. Upon perusal of the final report and the other materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2, while her husband is Accused No.1. There are two distinct sets of allegations against the petitioner.

3. Insofar as the first set of allegations is concerned, it is alleged that Accused No.1 had promised the defacto complainant that he would secure leasehold rights in respect of the ground belonging to a particular institution believing the representation, the defacto complainant parted with money. However, neither were the leasehold rights secured nor was the amount returned. It is further alleged that the petitioner, being Accused No.2, actively aided Accused No.1 in the commission of the said offence.

4. With regard to the second set of allegations, it is alleged that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. The amount was not repaid. It is further alleged that, towards repayment, the petitioner issued a cheque, which, upon presentation, was dishonoured to insufficiency of funds.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for recovery of a time-barred debt. It was further contended that, insofar as the first transaction is concerned, only Accused No.1 was involved and no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. It respect of the second transaction, it was argued that it is merely a case of borrowing and non-repayment of money, which, by itself, would not constitute a criminal offence.

6. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

                   (i) Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311.

                   (ii) Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148

                   (iii) Rekha Jain v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 174.

7. I have also heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side.)

8. In the present case, it is specifically alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque towards repayment of the borrowed amount and that the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. At this stage, it cannot be held that the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are not made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not produced any material to show that separate proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have already been initiated. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the dispute is entirely civil in nature.

9. Even with regard to the first transaction, the allegation of the defacto complainant is that the petitioner, being the wife of Accused No.1, had aided and conspired with him. Whether such allegations are true or otherwise can be determined only after a full-fledged trial. These are essentially disputed questions of fact, which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. Considering that the case is of the year 2017 and that the trial has commenced only now, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer for quashing at this state. All the grounds raised by the petitioner are left open to be urged before the trial Court, and the same shall be considered on their own merits.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. However, considering the hardship expressed by the petitioner, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court shall stand dispensed with, except on such hearing dates as the trial Court specifically directs or insists upon his personal presence.

12. Considering that the case pertains of the year 2017, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. The parties shall extend their full cooperation for the early completion of the trial.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.