Inherent powers to quash proceedings not exercisable to evaluate defences or conduct mini-trial; if allegations prima facie disclose cheating and breach of trust, case proceeds to trial despite accused's victim claim in connected matter.

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface:

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is undoubtedly a constitutional safety-valve preserved by statute to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Yet, such power is not intended to conduct a mini-trial, sift disputed facts, weigh competing versions, or decide the ultimate innocence or guilt of an accused.

2. The present petition presents a familiar but legally delicate contention. The petitioner asserts that in one case he is the defacto complainant and victim, while in another case arising out of the same transaction he has been shown as an accused. The prosecution, on the other hand, contends that though the two cases may have a factual connection, they are not legally identical transactions, and that the petitioner’s liability towards the persons from whom he directly collected money cannot be extinguished merely because he claims to have been cheated by another person further down the chain.

3. It is in this backdrop that this Court is called upon to decide whether the proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2019 deserve to be interdicted at the threshold.

Case of the prosecution:

4. The prosecution case, as borne out from the complaint, investigation and final report, is that the son of the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant was seeking employment abroad. The petitioner is alleged to have represented that he could arrange foreign employment for the son of the defacto complainant. Believing such representation, the 2^nd respondent is stated to have paid a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to the petitioner. The specific allegation is that the said amount was directly paid/deposited to the petitioner, who, after receiving the money, failed to secure employment abroad and failed to return the amount. It is further alleged that the petitioner took the son of the defacto complainant to Delhi on the assurance of arranging employment abroad, left him there, returned to Tamil Nadu and thereafter failed to fulfil the promise.

5. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent, the respondent police registered a case for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. After completion of investigation, final report was filed for the said offences and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.32 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai.

Grounds for quash:

6. The petitioner seeks quashment principally on the ground that the prosecution is mala fide and falls within the seventh category laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. It is contended that prior to the registration of the present case, the petitioner himself lodged a complaint, which resulted in registration of Crime No.24 of 2017, wherein he was shown as the defacto complainant.

7. In the said case, according to the petitioner, seven persons were originally arrayed as accused. However, after investigation, final report was filed only against one Balabhaskaran, who had allegedly received the money from the petitioner. It is further contended that Balabhaskaran had died on 12.10.2019, whereas the final report in that case was filed on 19.12.2019, and therefore the police had mechanically laid a charge sheet against a dead person.

8. The petitioner’s further grievance is that the other accused persons, particularly A5 to A7 in the earlier case, were deleted from the array of accused and shown as witnesses, though money was allegedly transferred to them.

9. According to the petitioner, the very same witnesses figure in the present case also. Therefore, both cases arise out of one continuous transaction and the petitioner ought to have been shown only as a witness in the present case also. It is also contended that the petitioner had only collected money from the victims and transferred it to Balabhaskaran and others, and therefore he cannot be fastened with criminal liability.

10. Th