P JEYANTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai for M/s S. Ashok Kumar and S. Shanmughavelayutham, Advocates for the petitioner and of Mrs. Kalaiselvi for the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent, the court made the following order:The petitioner is the fourth accused in C.C. No. 327 of 1985, pending on the file of the sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee. It is now represented that on transfer on administrative grounds, the said calendar case has been renumbered as C.C. No. 945 of 1989 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Poonamallee. The petitioner, along With the Company, Messrs, Rohini Ice and Cold Storage (first accused), R. Panneerselvam (second accused), S.Y. Ramavelu Chettiar (third accused) and S. Mahalingam (fifth accused), is being prosecuted by the respondent before the trial court for the Commission of offences punishable under Sections 44 (c) and 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 484 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this court to quash the proceedings in the above said case as against her, on the ground that the prosecution is not maintainable, since the records in their entirety do not disclose commission of any offence by her. The only allegation as far as me petitioner is concerned, according to the charge-sheet is that she was a partner of the first accused and was enjoying the benefit of the theft committed.

(3.) Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that except stating that the petitioner is the wife of the second accused and a partner in the first accused company, no other allegations have been made, even to remotely show that she had anything to do with the actual management of the affairs of the company (first accused). The records of investigation further did pot show that the petitioner was or had been participating in the day-today affairs of the company. It was strenuously urged that the mere fact that the petitioner, was a partner of the first accused company would not be sufficient to mulct her with criminal - liability.