The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows quashing of proceedings only when no prima facie case is disclosed, with issues surrounding evidence and role requiring trial evaluation.

ORDER:

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.163 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, arising out of Crime No.563 of 2010 registered for offences under Sections 420 and 506(ii) IPC, and to quash the same insofar as the petitioner/Accused No.12 is concerned, and for consequential reliefs.

Preface:

2. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973, is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. At the stage of quash, this Court does not embark upon appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact. If the allegations in the final report disclose a prima facie case and the matter requires trial, this Court would normally refrain from scuttling the prosecution at its threshold, keeping in view the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and the consistent line of precedents thereafter.

Case of the Prosecution:

3. The prosecution case, as borne out by the FIR and the final report, is that the first accused (accused No.1), projecting himself to be a cinema producer, was acquainted with the de facto complainant, who was working at ABT Car Care Centre near Fathima College, Madurai. It is alleged that the 1^st accused induced the de facto complainant to part with money on the representation that a “casket/kalasam” connected with a so-called “rice pulling” demonstration would be purchased/used and that the complainant would benefit. On such inducement, the complainant allegedly paid Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), thereafter Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), and again Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), totalling Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only).

4. It is further alleged that on 15.11.2010, accused No.1 demanded a further sum by showing other accused as persons connected with the transaction. The complainant, suspecting cheating, lodged the complaint, on the basis of which Crime No.563 of 2010 came to be registered for offences under Sections 420 and 506(ii) IPC against 16 accused, and the petitioner is shown as Accused No.12.

5. The petitioner states that the investigation remained pending for several years and that he had earlier approached this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21372 of 2023. On 28.11.2023, the police reported that the final report had been filed through e-filing on 26.11.2023. This Court recorded the submission and disposed the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies, in the manner known to law. The petitioner further contends that the final report was taken on file by the learned Trial Court only on 23.01.2025 as C.C.No.163 of 2025, and that there were difficulties in securing complete copies of the charge sheet set and annexures.

Grounds urged for quash:

6. The grounds urged by the petitioner may be summarised as follows:

The case has been taken on file after an inordinate delay of about 15 years, and therefore the prosecution is an abuse of process. The allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC are mainly against accused No.1; the petitioner did not receive any money and there is no material to infer dishonest intention or inducement attributable to him. The offence under Section 506(ii) IPC is not made out, as there is no specific threat attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner also refers to limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., 1973.

Submissions:

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR is of the year 2010 and the case was t