Devi vs State By Its on 5 July, 2023

Challenging the case in C.C.No.293 of 2017 pending trial on the file of the learned judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai District, the present criminal original petition has been filed.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No.293 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai. The petitioner is not an employee in C- 1245 Agricultural Co-operative Society, Arni and she was engaged on contract basis and paid salary through Rainbow Security Service. The second respondent conducted an enquiry with regard to misappropriation of Rs.13,84,347/- in the Society and in the Sur-charge proceedings Tha.Thee.No.03 of 2015-2016 dated 27.11.2015, held that one T.Karunakaran and S. Kamalanathan are responsible for misappropriation of Rs.13,84,347/-. The petitioner being not an employee in the Co-operative society and not responsible for misappropriation of above said amount cannot be taken as an accused along with the persons causing loss to the Society. Continuing the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis criminal proceeding in C.C.No.293 of 2017 is inappropriate. Therefore, seeking to quash.

5.On verification of case records and materials, it reveals that based on the complaint given by one Saravanan, Deputy Registrar of Co-operatives, the respondent police registered a case against the accused persons in Crime No.8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of 2015. After investigation, filed a final report against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 109, 477 A, 120B, 471 & 467 IPC and the case has been taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai in C.C.No.293 of 2017. In the C.C.No.293 of 2017, the petitioner is the third accused and challenging the criminal proceedings on the ground that she is not an employee in C-1245 Agricultural Cooperative Society, Arni. It is not disputed that the petitioner is not an employee in C- 1245 Agricultural Co-operative Society, Arni and she was engaged in the society through Rainbow Security service and paid salary also through it. Further, it is also not disputed that in the surcharge proceedings finally held that only Karunakaran and S.Kamalanathan are responsible for misappropriation of Rs.13,84,347/- to the society. Further, the surcharge proceedings, there is no finding against this petitioner for participation in creating any false document and for taking an amount from the society. Under such circumstances, a decision relied on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and ors reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636 is taken into consideration https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of a case in Radheshyam Kejriwal V. State of West Bengal and Anr reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581, in which, it is held that "26. We may observe that the standard of proof in a criminal case is much higher than that of the adjudication proceedings. The Enforcement Directorate has not been able to prove its case in the adjudication proceedings and the Appellant has been exonerated on the same allegation. The Appellant is facing trial in the criminal case. Therefore, in our opinion, the determination of facts in the adjudication proceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant in the criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap [AIR 1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench had not considered the effect of a finding of fact in a civil case over the criminal cases and that will be evident from the following passage of the said judgment: (AIR p. 27) ... I must, however, say that in answering the question, I have only referred to civil cases where the actions are in personam and not those where the proceedings or actions are in rem. Whether a finding of fact arrived at in such proceedings or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis actions would be relevant in criminal cases, it is unnecessary for me to decide in this case. When that question arises for determination, the provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act, will have to be carefully examined.

6.In view of the above, the petitioner is not an employee and not responsible for the misappropriation of an amount of Rs.13,84,347/-. Further, there is no material against this petitioner for prosecuting the criminal case. Under these circumstances, continuing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.293 of 2017 against this petitioner is inappropriate. Therefore, C.C.No.293 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai against this petitioner is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.




                     Index: yes/no
                     Internet:yes/no                                                    05.07.2023
                     sms

                     To




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis




                     1.Inspector of Police
                       CCIW Police Station,
                       Thiruvannamalai,
                       Thiruvannamalai District.
                       (Crime No.8 of 2015)

                     2.The learned judicial Magistrate No.II,
                       Thiruvannamalai District.

                     3.The Public Prosecutor,
                       High Court, Madras.




                                                                V. SIVAGNANAM, J.






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis


                                                                     sms





                                                                and
                                  Crl.M.P.Nos.12318 & 12320 of 2021




                                                            05.07.2023







https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments