Inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings should not be used to conduct mini-trials. If prima facie evidence of a fraudulent scheme exists, proceedings must continue, except for specific charges that clearly fail to satisfy statutory requirements under the provided factual narrative.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.541 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, insofar as the petitioner/A5 is concerned.

2. The petitioner stands arrayed as the fifth accused. The criminal law was set in motion on the complaint lodged by the second respondent/de-facto complainant, pursuant to which the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.262 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the final report came to be laid for the offences under Sections 120-B, 423, 465, 468, 471, 473, 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC.

3. The gravamen of the accusation is that accused Nos.1 to 4, acting in concert, induced several innocent persons by making a false promise that employment would be secured for them in the Railways Department, collected huge sums of money from them, fabricated appointment-related documents and, when the deceit surfaced, threatened the victims instead of returning the money. The petitioner, who is the father of the second accused, seeks quashment on the ground that no specific overt act is attributed to him except his alleged presence at the time of a panchayat and execution of an undertaking for repayment.

4. This Court heard the submissions made on either side and carefully examined the materials placed on record.

Case of the Prosecution:

5. The prosecution case, as could be gathered from the First Information Report, final report and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973. is that the first accused, who is the son-in-law of the present petitioner, along with accused Nos.2 to 4, induced the de-facto complainant and several others, including Rajalakshmi, Chandrasekaran, Anbarasan and Alagarsamy, by representing that they were capable of securing jobs for them in the Railways Department.

6. Believing the said representation, the victims are said to have parted with substantial amounts of money on different dates. It is the further case of the prosecution that bogus appointment orders were thereafter created and issued, and the victims were even instructed to proceed to join duty, only to later discover that the entire exercise was a sham and that they had been duped.

7. When the cheated persons demanded the return of the money, the accused allegedly convened a panchayat near the garden land belonging to the petitioner/A5, close to a Murugan Temple. In the said panchayat, an agreement or acknowledgment is stated to have been executed assuring repayment of the amounts received. According to the prosecution, the presence of the petitioner in the said meeting was not casual, but indicative of his active support, consent and complicity in the acts committed by the other accused.

8. The prosecution would further state that as many as six cases have been registered in connection with the same modus operandi adopted by the accused persons and that the present case forms part of a larger design of job racketeering. The petitioner, being a person of local influence and the father of the second accused, is alleged to have lent support and legitimacy to the acts of the principal accused, thereby facilitating the cheating of the victims and the intimidation that followed.

Grounds for Quash:

9. The principal contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the p