JUDGMENT :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4670 of 2006, pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

2. The case of the prosecution is that Alwarpet Benefit Fund Limited, which was a Company engaged in the business of receiving fixed deposits, failed to repay the deposits even after maturity. An FIR was registered based on the complaint given by one of the depositor. In the course of investigation, it was found that 46,000 depositors were defrauded to the tune of Rs.118 crores. The investigation was completed, and a Final Report was filed against 14 accused persons and the petitioner is ranked as A-4. Even though, the Final Report was taken cognizance in the year 2006, the principal accused persons viz; A-1 to A-3 have absconded and are said to be living in a foreign country and are yet to be brought back to India, and therefore there is absolutely no progress in the case for the last 13 years.

3. The petitioner who has been arrayed as A-4, was working as a Director of the Company during the period from 27.02.1997 to 04.07.1999.

4. Mr. V.P. Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by profession, and he was made as an accused in this case only on the ground that he was one of the Directors in the Company. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that no overt act, has been attributed against the petitioner and the respondent Police have added the petitioner as an accused by merely applying the principle of vicarious liability. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the concept of vicarious liability will not apply for IPC offences. The learned Senior Counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that the main accused persons have escaped from the clutches of law, and the petitioner who was a Non-Executive Director and a Chartered Accountant by profession, has been going through the ordeal of facing criminal proceedings without there being any material available against him and the criminal proceeding is an abuse of process of Court, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

5. The respondent Police have filed a counter affidavit in this case. The relevant portions of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:

3. It submitted that I am the Investigating Officer of the case in Cr.No.993/1999 U/s.406, 409,420, 506(ii) r/w 120 (B) IPC. On the Complaint of Tr.Rajendran, (Retd) Chief Engineer, Railways, No. A-87, Annanagar, Chennai-40 a case was registered against the company in EOW cr.993/1999 U/s.406,409,420,506 (ii) r/w 120(b) IPC and the case was Charged on 14.07.2006 before the C.M.M. Court, Egmore, in C.C.No.4670/06, dated 24.08.06. Total defaulted amount is Rs.118 Crores for 46,000 depositors. So far Rs.75.25 Crores was settled to 10,632 depositors as full settlement. For the remaining 35,368 depositors 61% was settlement as part payment (13th installments). The Retd. Justice Tr.Taman was appointed as Administrator in this Company for recovery of dues to the company and for settlements to the depositors.

5. It is submitted that the averments made in Para 3 & 4 are dennied that A4 Magesh was appointed as one of the Director in Alwarpet Benefit Fund Ltd., on 27.02.1997. During the period A-4 acted as a director and attended the Board of Directors meeting and signed in the Minutes and continued as a director till 04.07.1999. As per the Article Association of the company the management shall vested with the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall have been sole discretion regarding utilization of the companies fund. The Board of Directors shall empowered to frame rules with the respect various scheme of loans and advances of the company such as those relating to mode of application, the rate of interest or loans, Principle or interest, nature of repayment etc. The Board of Directors shall have powers to frame rules governing the sc