M. SUBRAMANYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission.

(2.) The counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this Court already quashed the proceedings initiated against accused No.1 in Criminal Petition No.5633/2020 and similar allegation is made against this petitioner who has been arrayed as accused No.2. The counsel also vehemently contend that this Court while quashing the proceedings in paragraph No.6 taken note of the fact that though an allegation is made that signatures are obtained on the blank papers and no such demand promissory notes or any documents are recovered during the course of investigation and this Court also comes to the conclusion that when there is no prima facie material and in the absence of prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner, is nothing but abuse of process and hence this Court has to quash the proceedings.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the State also not disputes the fact that though charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 and 2, similar allegations are made against accused Nos.1 and 2.