SHANTHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is A-2 among 6 accused in C. C. No. 90 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirupur, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409 and 420 IPC. A-1, A-3 and A-6 are her husband, brother and father respectively while A-4 is a Partner of one of the Firms involved, viz. , Anu Yarns, and A-5 is the co-brother of A1.

(2.) THE accused were running four Concerns in the name of M/s. Shanthi Mills (P) Limited, M/s. Uma Maheswari Textiles, M/s. Anu Yarns and M/s. G. P. K. Apparels. Petitioner/a-2 is one of the partners of Shanthi Mills (P) Limited. It is the case of the prosecution that on behalf of the Firms, the accused approached the complainant for purchase of cotton yarn and there were regular transactions between the complainant and the accused and during 2001-2002, goods worth Rs. 1,90,00,000/- have been supplied. Though Rs. 1,30,00,000/- have been received by the complainant, there was an outstanding of Rs. 66,35,215/ -. In spite of repeated reminders, the accused failed to pay the balance amount, resulting in filing of a complaint before the respondent-police. On completion of the investigation, final report came to be filed before learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupur, whereupon, he took the case on his file as C. C. No. 90 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409 and 420 IPC. The petitioner, who is the 2nd accused, alone has preferred this petition to quash the proceedings.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, at the first instance, submits that though the petitioner happened to be a partner of Shanthi Mills Private Limited and wife of A-1, she was not at all in charge of the business conducted by A-1 and other accused and that a perusal of the materials available on record would go to show that the allegations against the petitioner are not substantiated; hence, the proceedings pending against her may be quashed. He draws the attention of this Court to the complaint, wherein, after narrating the list of accused and the names of the firms, it is alleged as follows:-