IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12/09/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.30556 OF 2003 1.Mrs.A.N.Renugha 2.Mrs.Janani Parvathi ... Petitioners -Vs- The State of Tamil Nadu by the Inspector of Police, Central Crisme Branch at Dt.St.Thomas Mount Police, Madras-600 016. ... Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief as stated therein. For petitioners : Mr.T.A.Kuppuswami For respondent : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Govt.Advocate (crl.side) :O R D E R The above criminal original petition has been filed under Section 4 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in Cr.No.39 of 2001, dated 28.6.2001, pending on the file of the respondent and quash the same. 2. Petitioners are A.2 and A.3 in the case registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 467,468,471 and 420 IPC and when the case is under investigation, they have come forward to file the above criminal original petition for the relief extracted supra. 3. The respondent registered the case based on the complaint lodged by the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Alandur, Chennai. It comes to be known that when A.2 and A.3, who are respectively the wife and daughter of A.1, presented two cheques respectively for Rs.1 ,000/= crores and Rs.500/= crores before the State Bank of India, Alandur for encashment, suspecting the bona fides of the cheques presented by them, the defacto-complainant lodged the complaint. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that A.1 sent the cheques in favour of the petitioners and since they only accepted the cheques and presented them for withdrawal, they being the recipients of the cheques, cannot be proceeded with and would pray for the relief extracted supra. 5. The learned Government Advocate on the criminal side would submit that A.1 received the cheques from the Universal Brotherhood Trust, Delhi and the preliminary investigation reveals that the Trust people already, prior to presenting the cheques, have closed the Trust and since the amount involved is huge, the Superintendent of Police addressed a letter to the Government to transfer the matter either to CBI or to the CB CID and the report is awaited for the past two years. The learned Government Advocate would also submit that A.1, who gave the cheques in favour of these petitioners, is dead. 6. Petitioners are only the recipients of the cheques and the drawer of the cheques is said to be the deceased first accused, who is none other than the husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner. Anyone, who receives the cheque, much less in the name of some donation in favour of a charitable trust, cannot commit an offence by themselves just for the sake of receiving the cheque and sending it for collection and therefore this Court is not able to find any illegality intentionally or deliberately committed on the part of these petitioners so far as their role in sending these cheques for encashment is concerned. 7. In these circumstances, the only decision that this Court could arrive at in the above criminal original petition pertaining to the prayer to quash the FIR No.39/2001, dated 28.6.2001, in which the respondent Police are not able to make any headwork in the last 28 months, is to allow the above criminal original petition quashing the FIR. In result, (i)the above criminal original petition is allowed. (ii)The proceedings in Cr.No.39/2001 on the file of the respondent are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Index: Yes Internet: Yes Rao To 1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch at Dt.St.Thomas Mount Police, Madras-600 016. 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 