Judgment :- The petitioner is the second accused in C.C. No.215 of 1993 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tuticorin. .2. The brief facts are: The petitioner herein and one Ashok, who wanted to gain control of administration of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank conspired with the first accused Mugundan, an employee of the bank who was in charge of the ‘Right Issues’ to commit criminal breach of trust, falsification of records, theft of share applications and the offence of cheating. The bank decided in the year 1990 to raise the capital by about Rs.28,00,000 and hence the Board proposed to raise the said capital by issuance of ‘right issues’ Such shares were offered to the already existing shareholders at the ratio of 1: 1 and such applicants should make necessary offer within the stipulated time i.e., on 30.5.1990 enclosing therewith a demand draft for the shares. There was also one condition that the allotment of shares would not exceed the value of the demand drafts. This procedure has been contemplated under Sec.81 of the Companies Act. It was further decided that no such application should be made after the deadline viz., 30.5.1990. The petitioner, who is accused No.2 and his brother accused No.3, who were not able to get things done as per their wishes, wanted to gain control of administration of the bank by adopting ingenious methods. This is spoken to by the witness Vetrivel and anticipating that there may be shareholders who would not have applied for fresh shares and given demand drafts for amounts more than what they applied. Thiru Chelliah, one such applicant, who has not applied for fresh shares within the stipulated time, approached the General Manager, Thiru Balakrishhan, of the bank to permit him to apply for right issues. The General Manager refused his request since the deadline was over. But, however, the petitioner and accused No.3 managed to get Chelliah’s signature in the share application without mentioning the date in column relating to the mode of payment which was left blank and have stealthily removed the original share applications of accused No.3, his wife and Boopathi Investments, which is a family concern of the petitioner herein, and has substituted the applications of Chelliah and fresh applications of accused No.3 and Boopathi Investments are wiped. The seal pertaining to the receipt of the said applications has been affixed in such a way that it will not be possible to decipher the actual date of the receipt. The modus operandi as to how the fabrication took place has been spoken to by witnesses O.Mallika and R.Mallika, the staff of the bank who were assisting the first accused in the issuance of right issues. Annamalaisami, the Deputy Manager of the bank conducted preliminary enquiry regarding the fraudulent transaction and he has in his report submitted that the petitioner made an extrajudicial confession about the malpractice and he even offered from stepping down if further action of malpractice are dropped. On the materials available after examining 23 witnesses and filing 12 documents a challan was filed for offences under Secs. 120-B, 420, 465, 468, 477-A and 381, I.P.C. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons. The case is set down for trial and summons have been received by the accused persons. 3. At this stage, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the proceeding inter alia contending: (i) that the dispute about the shares of the registered company can be represented before this Court under its company jurisdiction; (ii) construing the alleged disputes as commission of criminal offence is illegal in law; (iii) the complaint has no locus standi since the registered company alone can complain about the irregularity and not an individual shareholder. .4. In view of these contentions the point that arises for consideration is: ."Whether this Court is justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the averments made in the complaint, statements of witnesses, the preliminary report and such other material relied on by the prosecution?" .5. In R.D. Bajaj and another v. K.Pal Singh Gill and another, J.T. (1995)7 S.C. 299, the Supreme Court has settled the law relating to the exercise of power under Sec.482 of the Code and held that "such power should be exercised where the allegations made in the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. This Court can exercise such a power where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where he proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive or wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge and the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability of genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in me complaint, in me statements of witnesses, or weighing the documents produced along with the challan. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2018: 1977 Crl.L.J. 1606: 1977 S.C.C. (Crl.) 533: (1977)4 S.C.C. 39 , (para 4) and mis Court in Jothilingam v. State, has stated mat the inherent power under Sec.482, Crl. P.C. should be used very sparingly. The test is that the allegation of the complaint should be taken as they are without adding or substracting anything and it is not proper to evaluate the evidence or look into the documents meticulously. 6. Regarding locus standi to file the complaint, in A.R.Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 718: 1984 Crl.L.J. 647: (1984)2 S.C.C. 500 : 1984 S.C.C. (Crl.) 277, the Supreme Court has held: "right of a party to represent matters before Court cannot be whittled down into a strict jacket formula of locus standi..." The complainant herein is one of the active directors of the bank and is purely interested in the upkeep and dignity of the bank and a complaint by such a person cannot be said to be one without locus standi. Forgery, criminal breach of trust and falsification of records with a view to obtain shares which he is not entitled to would come solely in me purview of Indian Penal Code. Sec.621 of the Companies Act authorises the shareholders or any authorised person to lay complaint for offences. 7. The offences in the instant case are those arising under the Indian Penal Code. Whether the accused 1 to 3 are involved in committing forgery, falsification of accounts, cheating, breach of trust are all matters of facts. Even the question of jurisdiction can also be raised at the appropriate stage. 7. The offences in the instant case are those arising under the Indian Penal Code. Whether the accused 1 to 3 are involved in committing forgery, falsification of accounts, cheating, breach of trust are all matters of facts. Even the question of jurisdiction can also be raised at the appropriate stage. It cannot be said that the complaint is one without locus standi and not maintainable and it also cannot be said that mere is no averment touching the ingredients of the offences prima facie, and this Court is not justified in embarking upon the enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint or in construing the contents of the documents produced along with the challan and all the contentions are left open to be raised at the appropriate stage. I see no ground to quash the proceedings. The petition is dismissed.