Judgment This is a petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner pending against him in C. C. No. 367 of 1976 on the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi. 2. The petition arises under the following circumstances. The Inspector of Police, Commercial Crime, Investigation Wing (C.I.D.), Coimbatore, filed a charge-sheet on 23rd August, 1976 in the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi; against the petitioner and 11 others. The case has been taken on file for offences under sections 409, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is the third accused in the case. 3. The ease of the prosecution as disclosed by the charge-sheet is that between July, 1968, and February, 1969 the offence of criminal breach of trust to the tune of Rs. 2,652.60 has been committed by the accused in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy. According to the prosecution, the said money belonged to Amaravathi Cooperative Sugar Mill Employees Co-operative Stores of Krishnapuram at Udumalpet Taluk. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was the Manager of Amaravathi Cooperative Sugar Mills on deputation from 16th September, 1967 to 14th October, 1968. On 27th July, 1968 a cheque bearing No 3406 was drawn on the Udumalpet Co-operative Urban Bank for Rs. 2,090 signed by A-2, the Vice President and encashed by the Manager, A-1. but of which only Rs. 2,000 was credited in the cash book and the cash book was signed by A1, A-5 Internal Auditor, and A-2. Thus, a misappropriation of Rs. 90 was committed. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was the ex officio President and, therefore, he was liable under the bye-law of the Co-operative Society. The amount of criminal breach of trust involved during the time when the petitioner was functioning as ex officio President of Stores is Rs. 90. 4. It is seen that the petitioner is sought to be made liable purely vicariously and on the ground that as per the bye-law of the Society the ex officio President is responsible for all the properties of the Society. The petitioner was an officer in the Co-operative Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. He was sent on deputation to the Amaravathi Co-operative Sugar Mills as its business Manager from 16th September, 1967 to 14th October, 1968. The petitioner was an officer in the Co-operative Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. He was sent on deputation to the Amaravathi Co-operative Sugar Mills as its business Manager from 16th September, 1967 to 14th October, 1968. In the Employees Co-operative Society though an independent organisation, there is a provision that the Business Manager of Amaravathi Co operative Sugar Mills shall be its ex officio President. It was only in that capacity when the petitioner was on deputation as Business Manager of Amaravathi Co-operative Sugar Mills, he happened to be the ex officio President (sic) of Amaravathi Co-operative Sugar Mills Employees Co-operative Stores. As he himself felt that the duties and responsibilities were heavy, a resolution was passed on 17th February, 1968 that the Vice President of the Stores was to be solely and exclusively in charge of the day-today affairs of the stores including the powers to operate on Bank accounts, withdrawal and signing of cheques, signing and checking of cash books and all connected duties. Thus as provided for under bye-law, all the powers were delegated by the petitioner in his capacity as President to Vice-President and he had divested himself of all the responsibilities relating to the affairs of the Stores. A general body meeting of the stores also amended the bye-laws to that effect. The alleged misappropriation of Rs. 90 was on 27th July, 1968, after the petitioner ceased to be in charge of the Stores. The prosecution case itself is that out of Rs. 2,090 encashed by the cheque, Rs. 2,000 was credited in the cash book and Rs. 90 was misappropriated, the cash book being signed by the Manager, A-1, Vice President A-2 and Auditor A-5. The petitioner has not signed the cash book at all or the cheque book. The petitioner was transferred on 14th October, 1968 itself as Business Manager of Amaravathi Co-operative Sugar Mills. 5. The first informal ion report was lodged in the case on 18th December, 1969. The charge sheet was filed on 23rd August, 1976. The first information report does not mention anything about the petitioner. His name does not find a place. All the 9 witnesses cited in the charge sheet also do not implicate him in any way with the misappropriation of Rs. The charge sheet was filed on 23rd August, 1976. The first information report does not mention anything about the petitioner. His name does not find a place. All the 9 witnesses cited in the charge sheet also do not implicate him in any way with the misappropriation of Rs. 90 concerned, which is alleged to have taken place at the time when he was functioning as ex officio President of Amaravathi Co-operative Sugar Mills Stores. The petitioner in August, 1965, was posted as Head of the Department and Post Graduate Professor of Madras University in Commerce and served till 1973, September. From September, 1973, he was appointed as General Manager, Chintamani Supermarket, Madras. In August, 1975 he was promoted as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and as Class 1 Officer of the Tamil Nadu Government. In May, 1976 he was posted as Post Graduate Professor and Head of the Department of Agriculture Economics, Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore. On 31st July, 1977, the petitioner retired. 6. The prosecution agency on the first information report, dated 18th December. 1969 wherein the petitioner is not implicated, though fit to file a charge sheet on 23rd August, 1976 making the petitioner (A-3), an accused for an offence of misappropriation of Rs. 90 committed on 27th July, 1968 when he happened to be the President of the Society There is absolutely no basis for the complicity of the petitioner in the offence. The petitioner is sought to be involved in misappropriation of a paltry sum of Rs 90 committed by others. There is not even a single entry where the petitioner has signed either in the cash book or in any other relevant document Merely because he happened to be the President on that relevant date, vicariously he has been made to face a criminal charge, even though on that date, the entire management of the Stores was in charge of the Vice President as the resolution of the Society reveals. Even vicariously the petitioner cannot be held responsible from 17th February, 1968, as the amended bye-law made the Vice-President responsible for the affairs of the Stores, if there was any suspicion about the petitioner’s conduct while he was the President of the concerned Society in 1968, he would not have been posted to different responsible posts as mentioned supra till his retirement on 31st July, 1977. There is absolutely no material to make the petitioner face a criminal trial. There must be an honest belief of the accuser in the guilt of the accused. Accusations of a trivial nature without due foundation ought not to be been made against officers of the stature of the petitioner. It is clearly to harass and annoy him. False and malicious prosecution is an abuse of judicial machinery to bring innocent people to trouble. This case is a shining example to show that sometimes even a most honest, prudent administrator of affairs cannot save himself from having to seek the protective wings of the criminal law because of over-zealous, misguided investigating officers. Continuation of criminal proceedings against a person amounts to abuse of the Court when he is proceeded against for groundless and malicious accusation and quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. It is of utmost importance that investigation into criminal offences must always be tree from any objectionable features or infirmities. It must not give rise to an inference that it has been carried on unfairly or with any ulterior motive. 7. In the instant case, for a paltry sum of Rs 90 committed by some other accused an officer of the stature of the petitioner after holding innumerable responsible posts and having retired four years back is hauled up to face criminal proceedings on the only ground that on a particular date in 1968 he happened to be the President of the concerned Society. Apart from this, it is admitted there is not even a data of evidence either oral or documentary to connect him with the accusation. The proceeding initiated against the petitioner to my mind is preposterous. Even if the entire facts as laid by the prosecution are taken at their lace value and accepted in their entirety, there is nothing as far as the petitioner is concerned and to continue proceedings against him is manifestly unjust. I strongly feel the attention of persons entrusted with the prosecution of criminals as well as the investigation forces should be drawn to impress on them that a paramount duty rests upon them for being scrupulously and absolutely fair, without fear or favour, lest injustice should masquerade in the name of justice. I strongly feel the attention of persons entrusted with the prosecution of criminals as well as the investigation forces should be drawn to impress on them that a paramount duty rests upon them for being scrupulously and absolutely fair, without fear or favour, lest injustice should masquerade in the name of justice. The only redeeming feature in this sordid affair is the stand taken, in writing by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned in the lower Court that there was no material to make the petitioner an accused in this case. I place on record my appreciation of his fairness. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petition (A-3) in C. C. No. 367 of 1976 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi, deserves to be quashed and it is hereby quashed.