IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3 -3-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI CRL.O.P.No.25172 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 K. Mani ... Petitioner /A-3 vs The State rep by the Inspector of Police Kaveripakkam Police Station Vellore District (Crime No.480/2005) .. Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the reliefs as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.R. Vivekananthan For Respondent : Mr.Hassan Mohamed Jinnah APP ORDER The petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.92 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Wallajah and quash the same. 2. The petitioner is A.3 in Cr.No.480 of 2005. A complaint was given by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vellore against the petitioner and others based on which the case was registered by the respondent and on completion of the investigation, filed final report in CC No.92 of 2006 for the alleged offence under Sec.406, 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471, 420 IPC r/w 120-b IPC. 3. The specific charge against the petitioner is that he is the member of criminal conspiracy for misappropriation of Rs.50,000/- and thereby A.1 created forged and fraudulent loan applications and made a loss of Rs.50,000/- to the Co-operative Society. Aggrieved by taking cognizance, the petitioner is before this court to quash the proceedings so far as the petitioner is concerned. 4. Mr.N.R. Elango, learned senior counsel for the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would submit that the petitioner was working as a Special Officer in Kaveripakkam Agricultural Co-op Society Bank and he has nothing to do with the offence. The learned senior counsel further submitted that in the proceedings of the Joint Registrar dated 10.12.2008 it was clearly found that A.1 alone was solely responsible for misappropriation and the petitioner was exonerated from the departmental proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that when there is no legal evidence against the petitioner for the alleged offence stated in the charge sheet, he should not be subjected for long drawn trial and the proceedings has to be quashed. 5. The learned counsel relied on a decision reported in 1996 SCC Crl 897 (P.S. Rajya vs State of Bihar), wherein it is held as follows: "17. At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt i9n the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings". 6. In 2010 2 LW (Crl.) 1183 (S.P. Ganesan and another vs State) wherein this court has also quashed the proceedings on the ground that the accused was exonerated from the charges levelled against him in the disciplinary proceedings. 7. On the contrary, Mr.Hassan Mohamed Jinnah would submit that earlier the petitioner has approached this court in Crl.O.P 24379 of 2006 to quash the proceedings and the same was dismissed on the ground that the trial has commenced. Therefore, a similar application is not maintainable. He also submits that when the trial has commenced, the court need not interfere in the proceedings by invoking the jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Code, since the petitioner will be afforded sufficient opportunity to prove his innocence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Heard and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is admitted that the petitioner had already moved a petition before this Court in CrloP 24379 of 2006 to quash the proceedings and this Court dismissed the same for the reason that the trial has commenced. However, the present petition was filed on the ground that the Joint Registrar of the defacto-complainant bank had clearly exonerated the petitioner in his proceedings dated 10.12.2008 and on subsequent development, the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. 10. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he had recommended the loan application as the Special Officer of the Bank. Specific allegations were made against A.1 who was alleged to have created forged and fraudulent documents and against the Secretary, who has been arrayed as A.2, who has to process the application and recommend for the loan. In his proceedings dated 6.8.2010 the Joint Registrar has stated that the then Secretary had not obtained necessary orders in the loan application from the petitioner who was then the Special Officer. The clear finding is that the petitioner was not involved in processing the application and sanction of the loan. This finding by the Joint Registrar came subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier criminal petition of the year 2006. Therefore, the second application for quashing the proceedings on a change of circumstances is maintainable. 11. It is well settled that when a person is exonerated in the departmental proceedings on an identical charge, there is no point in continuing the criminal proceedings. In both the decisions cited supra, the Apex Court and this court held that when an accused is exonerated in a departmental proceedings on identical charges, there is no point in continuing the criminal proceedings. 12. It is pertinent to note that in the First Information Report, the name of the petitioner was not found and the prosecution has submitted in the year 2006 that the trial has commenced. Even after four years, the trial is pending and speedy trial is the fundamental right of the petitioner. 13. Though the High Court will not normally interfere in the criminal proceedings when trial has commenced, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to intervene where the petitioner is put to harassment by long drawn trial after he was also exonerated in a departmental proceedings. Therefore, pendency of such proceedings against the petitioner is only an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.92 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Wallaja is quashed so far as it pertains to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. Sd/ Deputy Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sr To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Wallaja. 2. The Inspector of Police Kaveripakkam Police Station Vellore District 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai +1cc to Mr.R.Vivekananthan, Advocate Sr 16326 PUR(CO) km/14.3. Crl.O.P.No.25172 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/