The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can quash proceedings if the allegations, even when taken at face value, do not make out a case against the accused, as per the guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

The petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-10 out of 14 accused, is facing trial for the alleged offence under Sections 408, 420, 465, 467 and 468 r/w 120 (b) IPC and she has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings pending in C.C.No. 2290 of 2003 on the file of the leaned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. Mr. V. Madavan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as the Branch Manager of Karur Vishya Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai. It is submitted that she has been implicated on the allegation that the petitioner has conspired along with other co-accused while she was functioning as the Manager in the said Bank, in which, the other co-accused opened accounts in fictitious names for the purpose of encashing cheques issued by Shriram Chits Ltd. It is further alleged that after opening the bank accounts in fictitious names, the money was either withdrawn or transferred to the family concerns of A-1. It is submitted that the further allegation is that the cheques for withdrawing the amount and mandate letter issued for the transfer of amount from one account to another account of the family concerns of A-1 are forged document issued by fictitious persons. The learned counsel submitted that the offence of forgery and other offences alleged against A-1 to A-9 and A-11 to A-14 and as far as the petitioner is concerned, she has been implicated with the aid of Section 120(b) IPC.

3. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that there is absolutely no material whatsoever available on record to implicate the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A10 for the offence of conspiracy. It is submitted that the bank has also not come forward with any grievance or complaint against the petitioner herein and the petitioner had been continued to work as a Bank Manager and subsequently, she joined in another Bank, namely, IndusInd bank in the year 2006 in Scale IV as Chief Manager and even as on date she is serving in the said bank with the unblemished record of service. Therefore, it is contended that the entire materials including the First Information Report and the Statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. do not disclose any offence against the petitioner much less the offence of conspiracy and as such it is contended that even if the entire allegations available on record taken in its entirety to be true, no offence made out against the petitioner and therefore, allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court. The learned counsel would also place reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention:

.(1) Firozuddin Basheeruddin V. State of kerala reported in (2001) 7 SCC 596 at para 23 (for conspiracy)

.(2) K.T.M.S.Mohd. V. Union of India ; (for conspiracy)

.(3) L.George & Others V. State rep. by the Superintendent of Police reported in; (for conspiracy and mis-joinder of parties); and

.(4) Solaiappa Gounder & Others. V. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Inspector of Police reported in; (for misjoinder of charges).

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that as far as the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-10 is concerned, the alleged offences of misappropriation, cheating and forgery were committed by the other co-accused while the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the Bank. It is contended that the allegation as far as the petitioner is concerned, the Investigating Officer has examined one witness, namely, L.W.48, Kalyanaraman, the successor of the petitioner as Branch Manager of Karur Vishya Bank, Anna Nagar, Chennai, and in his statement he has stated about the modus operandi of the other accused for committing the above said offences and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has stated that during the period of the commission of the above said offences, the petitioner/A-10 was worki