The main legal point established in the judgment is that lack of evidence and inherent improbability of allegations can lead to the quashing of charges against an accused.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.239 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Coimbatore and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.239 of 2018 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Coimbatore for the offences under Sections 120 (b), 420, 506 (ii) and 294 (b) of I.P.C.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, five in number, had collected Rs.23,45,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Forty Five Thousand only) from the defacto complainant; that A1 had invested the said amount in his concern called Rajkumar and Co; that money collected from the other witnesses were also kept in the account of Rajkumar and Co; that the first accused had represented that he would use the money for redeeming the jewels of persons who are unable to redeem the jewels from financial institutions; that after they make payment to him with interest, he would hand over the redeemed jewels to the respective owners; that the interest and profit earned could be shared by all the persons; that A1 did not repay the money taken from the victims and when questioned A2 abused him in filthy language; that the petitioner who is arrayed as A5 and the son of A2 was present when his father had abused the defacto complainant; that A5 had also assured the defacto complainant and others that their money would be safe and he would stand as Guarantor as he had means and earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) per month as salary.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly the transaction took place only between the first accused and the defacto complainant. The second accused was a tenant under the first accused and he had nothing to do with the alleged transactions between A1 and the defacto complainant and other persons. In fact, A2, the petitioner’s father had lodged a complaint against the first accused when they came to know that he had indulged in fraud. However, no action was taken by the police. The petitioner was employed in Bangalore and he rarely visited Coimbatore. Even, if the allegations in the charge sheet are accepted to be true, no offence is made out. The learned counsel pointed out the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer which are parrot like in nature. In the said statements, except for stating that the petitioner had assured the defacto complainant and others that he would stand as a Guarantor, nothing has been stated against him. The learned counsel therefore submitted that none of the offences are made out as against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is the case where the defecto complainant and others had invested in the concern run by A1 namely Rajkumar and Company and A2/Guruswamy had induced the defacto complainant to invest in the said company. They had promised to give returns at the rate of Rs.7/- per month for every Rs.100/- invested by the defacto complainant and victims. The second accused, the father of the petitioner had also made representation to induce the defacto complainant and others to invest in the company. The petitioner also had made representation stating that since he was employed and had sufficient means, he would guarantee the due repayment of the principal amount and the returns as promised by A1 and A2. Further, it is alleged that when A2 had abused the de-facto complainant and other victims, A5 was present. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that these are issues which have to be decided only in the trial and prayed for dismissal of quash petition.

5. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent, there is no representation for the 2nd respondent.

6. This Court has perused the impugned charge sheet and the materials filed along with the charge sheet before the learned Magistrate. The allegation is that A1 was running a concern in the name of