O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C.No. 1 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, 2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.3,32,000/- in fixed deposit vide No.212 to get a moderate monthly interest at the rate of 18% to meet his monthly expenses with the said Tirumala Benefit Fund Limited, Pondicherry. K.Ravindran, is the Managing Director of the said Company and his own brothers Mahendran and Nagendiran are the Directors of the said Company. The above three persons were overall in-charge of the transactions and they were handling all the transactions of the deposited amount. Subsequently, the defacto complainant has received monthly interest directly in person upto May 2005. Thereafter, when he went to collect the same, the company was found locked. When the defacto complainant tried to get his money back, he could not get any response from the Management. Further, he came to know that the deposited amount of Rs.3,32,000/- was misappropriated by the management of the said company. Hence, he lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police (CID), Pondicherry, the 1st respondent herein, who in turn registered a case against the petitioner/A10 and others for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and u/s 3 of the Pondicherry Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2004. Now, the petitioner/A10 has come before this Court with this Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.1 of 2012.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A10 has contended that there is no material in this case to hold that the petitioner has committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Initially, the petitioner was acted as one of the Directors of the Thirumala Benefit Fund Limited and subsequently, on 10.08.2003, she resigned the post and Form No.32 was submitted before the Registrar of Companies and hence, she had resigned from the Directorship of the company as early as on 10.08.2003, whereas the alleged misappropriation and cheating by the company said to have been taken place between 07.10.2003 and May 2005. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has resigned the post in the year 2003 and the alleged offence had happened in the year 2005, hence, this petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged act which took place after her resignation.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent contended that there is material available in this case to show that there is prima facie case as against this petitioner/A10. The Company was incorporated during the year 1993 and at that time the petitioner/A10 was the Director of the company. There are 80 depositors who had deposited their hard earned money with the accused company at the time when the petitioner was the Director of the company. The Thirumala Benefit Fund Limited (A1) had fraudulently defaulted in repayment of deposits on maturity to its depositors making itself liable for proceedings under the Act. The provisions of the Act shows that prima facie there are materials to charge the petitioner and hence, no detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defence is required at this stage warranting a discharge.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry, appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on records.

6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner/A10 Shantha Bai, has been charged for the commission of offence under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and u/s 3 of the Pondicherry Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2004 and the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A10 along with others, in the course of conducting business and affairs of A1