M ANTONY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above criminal original petitions have been filed by the accused No.2 to 5 in the cases in Cr.Nos.7 and 8/2002, both registered by one and the same respondent, the Economic Offences Wing-2, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District seeking to call for the records in the said crime numbers and quash the same as against the petitioners on common grounds such as that the petitioners are members of the same family arrayed as accused No.2 to 5 in each case; that in both the said cases, the first accused is one M.Elwin Jesudas who is also the member of the same family and these petitioners would submit that the first accused has been running the business in banking from the year 1989 onwards having obtained the licence under the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943 thus doing the business under the name and style of `Elwin Bankers' at Door No.12-73E, Asaripallam Junction, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

(2.) The petitioners would further submit that due to some difficulties, the first accused was not able to return the amounts to the depositors and the depositors started complaining not only against the said Elwin Yesudas but also against the petitioners for cheating, based on which the first of the above cases in Cr.No.7/2002 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B IPC and the case in Cr.No.8/2002 has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Tamilnadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In financial establishments) Act, 1997; that the petitioners are in no way connected to the said business of the first accused and without application of mind they have been falsely implicated by the respondent as accused in the above cases taking advantage of their relationship with the first accused.

(3.) Giving the details of the investments made by the complainants in both the above cases, the petitioners would further submit that the accounts have been opened in the first accused bank in their respective names after payment of the money to the first accused and the receipts acknowledging their payments have been issued only by the first accused and in these transactions, the petitioners have no role at all except for bald allegation that they have canvassed for their investment.