IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM CRL.O.P.No.26013 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 1.Kathamuthu Pillai 2.Tamilarasi 3.Lakshmanan 4.Rajamurugan 5.Gobinath .. Petitioners/Accused 2 to 6 -Vs- The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Tiruppur, Coimbatore District (Crime No.4 of 2003) .. Respondent Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records of charge sheet in C.C. No. 302 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur and quash the entire proceedings. For Petitioners : Mr. V. Bharathidasan For Respondent : Mr. S. Senthilmurugan for Mr. P. Kumaresan, Public Prosecutor O R D E R The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 302 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur. 2. The case arises in the following manner: A1 was an employee of M/S. Savi Fabrics, Hosiery Garments Export Company at Tiruppur. Being the manager and accountant thereof, A1 forged several cheques between 25.08.2001 and 23.03.2002, as if drawn on behalf of the company and usurped the proceeds of the cheques, in a sum of Rs.21,22,000/-. The further case is that the sums so obtained were used by A2 to A6 for purchasing properties in their names. On the above, A1 stands charged under Sections 120(B), 467(10 counts), 471(10 counts), 477(A) and 408 I.P.C. and A2 to A6 stand https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ charged under Sections 120(B), 467, 471 477(A), 408 read with 109 I.P.C. The petitioners/accused A2 to A6 are now before this Court by way of the present quash petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a reading of the F.I.R., charge sheet and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements for the witnesses would show that though A1 might be said to have committed the offence of forgery and usurping of funds, there was nothing to indicate that the other accused had any knowledge of the manner, in which, the first accused had gone about committing the offence. Merely because properties were purchased in the names of the present petitioners, it could not be said that they had connived with the first accused in commission of offences relating to forgery of cheques and usurping of funds. 4. The learned Government Advocate submits that the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses inform that enquiry was caused of persons belonging to the village of the first accused, since he did not turn up for work and it was found that a big bungalow of value of Rs.30,00,000/- had been purchased in his name. The local enquiry also informed that his family was not a well to do one and the local belief was that first accused had won a lottery of Rs.50,00,000/-. 5. Considering the above submissions made by the learned Government Advocate and given the series of transactions indulged in by the first accused and consequential purchase of the properties in the names of the accused 2 to 6, this Court now, is unable to arrive at a finding that these petitioners did not share any common intent with the first accused. Whether these petitioners/accused had knowledge of the wrong indulged in by the first accused and whether they shared his intention would be matters for the trial Court to appreciate. 6. For the above reasons, this petition would stand dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to raise all grounds before the trial Court and the dismissal of the present petition would have no bearing on the proceedings at the trial Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners 1 and 2 namely, father and mother of the first accused in the case are aged persons and suffering from several ailments are bed ridden. As they are at Mannarkudi, the requirement of their presence for proceedings before the Court at Tiruppur would cause them undue hardship. Hence, he would seek dispensing with their personal appearance at every hearing before the Trial Court. This Court considers it appropriate that the petitioners 1 and 2 move the concerned Court by way of appropriate petition, which, of course, would have due appreciation and consideration at the hands of the concerned Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. For the above said reasons, the criminal original petition is dismissed and consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar kj To 1.The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Tiruppur, Coimbatore District. 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate, Sr.No.22102 CRL.O.P.No.26013 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 RV {CO} TP/16.4.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/