1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C (MD).No.365 of 2011 M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Malarvizhi ... Petitioner/Accused 5 vs. State rep.by the Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Theni District, Theni. ... Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against the order, dated 01.03.2011 passed in Cr.M.P.No.1090 of 2009 in C.C.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge under the TNPID Act, Madurai dismissing the discharge petition filed by the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 5 of TNPID Act and Sec 406, 420 r/w, Section 120(b) IPC. For petitioner : Mr.C.Suresh Kumar For respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubmramani Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This revision has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the order, dated 01.03.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.1090 of 2009 in C.C.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge under the TNPID Act, Madurai. 3. It is seen that the petitioner herein was arrayed as A5 in the case in C.C.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act, Madurai and she filed a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C., seeking discharge and the same was dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by which, this revision has been preferred by the petitioner / A5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / A5 submits that the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged occurrence and that she is only a house wife. Merely she is the wife of the co-accused, P.S.Elangovan, the petitioner has been implicated as one of the accused and requested the Court to allow the revision and discharge the petitioner / A5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. Per contra, learned Government appearing for the respondent submitted that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner / A5. According to the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner / A5 along with the other accused persons conducted financial establishment, collected money from various depositors to the tune of Rs.83 lakhs, however, the same was not disbursed to the deposit holders. The petitioner and the co-accused are close relatives and one of the co-accused is none other than the husband of the petitioner / A5, who is A2 in the said criminal case. Based on the complaint given by various depositors, case was registered under Section 420, 406 r/w 120 (b) IPC in Cr.No.13 of 2005 and Section 5 of TNPID Act. Learned Government Advocate also drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order passed by the Court below and also the counter filed by the respondent before the Court below. 6. As found by the Court below, it is seen that there is specific allegation against the petitioner / A5 that she had collected money from various depositors along with the co- accused in the name of A1 firm and the petitioner was a partner in the firm and further, as per the statement given by the depositors under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C, they have made allegation against the petitioner herein and other that she had canvassed for the deposits made by various persons. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is seen that the defence raised by the petitioner has to be decided by the trial court, based on the evidence. At this stage, the Court cannot go into the evidenciary value of the compliant given by the defacto- complainant and the statement recorded under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. 7. When there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner and materials available, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Court below in dismissing the petition, seeking discharge and there is no need for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner / A5 is at liberty to raise all her defence before the Court below and the Court below is directed to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, solely on merits, uninfluenced by the findings of this Court, if any. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Special Judge under the TNPID Act Madurai. 2. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Theni District, Theni. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +One cc to Mr.M.Selvakumar, Advocate, SR.No.39245 tsvn rl/5c – 2.12.2011 Crl.R.C.(MD).No.365 of 2011 10-11-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/