The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot appreciate evidence or resolve disputed facts; it must only determine if the allegations in the complaint prima facie constitute the ingredients of the alleged offences.

PRAYER:

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to charge sheet in CC.No.16 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act , Coimbatore and quash the same.

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.16 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act , Coimbatore

2. The case of the prosecution is that one, Sathiskumar/Accused No.2 and Gunavathy/Accused No.3 introduced 12 software schemes and canvassed the depositors to invest in the said software schemes to get money daily. Based on the advertisement, the de-facto complainant deposited in two schemes for sum of Rs.4,80,000/- and Rs.2,40,000/- on 30.05.2019 and 24.06.2019 respectively. But Sathiskumar/Accused No.2 and Gunavathy/Accused No.3 did not pay the daily returns from 4th July onwards. Further, Accused No.2 & 3 absconded with the deposited amounts. Hence, the de-facto complainant lodged the case against the Dream Makers Global Private Limited, Sathiskumar and Gunavathy on 27.09.2019 and the case was registered against the said three persons in Crime No.5 of 2019 for the offence u/s.406, 420 of I.P.C, section 5 of TNPID Act and sections 3,5 r/w.21 of the Banning of unregulated Deposits Scheme Act, 2019 . Thereafter, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court, against which this criminal original petition has been filed.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there are totally four accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A4. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is not the Manager of the first accused company and he has nothing to do with the day to day affairs of the first accused company. A2 and A3 are the Manager Director and Director of the first accused company. Though the petitioner was looking after the first accused company, the entire amount was deposited to the credit of the first accused company. Further, the petitioner has been implicated as accused only on the basis of the second accused’s confession statement and except the confession statement, no other documents were availabe to implicate the petitioner as an accused. Hence the learned counsel prayed to quash the impugned proceedings.

4. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that there are totally four accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A4. He acted as a manager of the first accused company. In fact, he only dealt with all the depositors and issued fixed deposit receipts. Though he is not the Manager of the first accused company, he is a sleeping partner of the first accused company and he received deposits from the victims to the tune of Rs.3,15,00,724/- Further, the second accused received deposits to the tune of Rs.2,22,52,000/- and the same was transferred to the account of the fourth accused . Therefore, the fourth accused has totally received around Rs.5 crores. Now the first respondent has filed final report in respect of the statements recorded from 1051 depositors. However, so far there are 1,30,759 depositors and all the accused have totally cheated to the tune of Rs.454 crores. That apart, the petitioner only issued fixed deposit receipts to the depositors. Therefore, there are specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 406, 420 & 120B of I.P.C, Section 5 of TNPID Act .

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial