Criminal prosecution for conspiracy requires evidence of the accused's knowledge and involvement in the criminal objective; mere negligence, failure to supervise, or vague allegations without proof of illicit intent or benefit do not constitute sufficient grounds for a prima facie case of conspiracy.

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining in C.C.No.288 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam, Madurai District and quash the same so far as the petitioner concerned.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the impugned final report in C.C.No.288 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam, Madurai District, which was filed for the offences under Section 120B , 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC as against the petitioner.

The gist of the allegations in the final report is that the second respondent was born in Ireland; that she later acquired Indian citizenship; that in the year 1992, she started a Trust in the name of Teddy Trust; that the said Trust was involved in various businesses including export of wooden products, tailoring and was also involved in running a School; that between 2013 and 2019, she had to travel abroad frequently and hence, she appointed one Gavaskar/A1 as Resource Director and General Manager to take care of her business and handle the accounts of the Trust; that the said Gavaskar had committed misappropriation in many ways with the connivance and in conspiracy with 17 other accused; that the petitioner, who is arrayed as A11, was working as a Co-ordinator in the School run by the Trust. It is further alleged in the final report that all the 18 accused, some of whom were related to the first accused and employees in the business concerns of the Trust, had conspired and committed the aforesaid offences causing a loss of Rs. 14,58,34,679/- to the defacto complainant and her Trust.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations as against the petitioner, even if accepted to be true, would not constitute the aforesaid offences; that the petitioner is a retired Headmistress of a Government High School; that at the request of the second respondent, the petitioner joined the School as a Coordinator due to her experience and expertise in the field of teaching; that she retired in the year 2019; and that she has been erroneously prosecuted for the alleged offences said to have been committed by the 1st accused.

The learned counsel would further submit that the main allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with A10 was entrusted with a sum of Rs.2,85,78,140/-, [Rupees Two Crores Eighty Five Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand One Hundred and Forty Only] which was the total fees collected from the students studying in the School; and that A1 as the General Manager and A2 as the Resource Director had received the said amount of Rs. 2,85,78,140/-; that A1 and A2 had prepared a false cash receipt voucher to make it appear that they had received only a sum of Rs.1,22,85,800/- and misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.1,62,92,340/- with the connivance of the petitioner; that there is no allegation that the petitioner had misappropriated the said sum; that one Assistant, by name Kartheeswari, even according to the prosecution, had signed in the cash voucher and it is only the first accused, who had misappropriated the said sum. The other allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had signed a cash voucher for Rs.10,00,000/- for the purpose of getting certain approvals for the School and that the first accused had misappropriated the said sum; and that even according to the prosecution, the petitioner had not misappropriated the said sum. He would hence submit that the impugned prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) per contra would submit that there is an allegation of conspiracy; that all the 18 accused had entered into conspiracy to commit the offences of forgery, cheating and misappropriation and allowed the 1st accused to misappropriate a total sum of Rs.14,58,34,679/-; that the allegation against the petitioner is that she was working as a Co-ordinator in the