Judgment 1. A case has been registered against the petitioner and three others on the complaint of one Madhukumar, General Manager (Marketing), Raasi Cement Limited. Of course, originally, in the F.I.R., the name of the petitioner herein was not mentioned. But, in pursuance of the Order of the High Court in Crl.O.P.No.10729 of 1996, the complaint given before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem, was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch under Sec.156(3) of Crl.P.C. 2. Now, it is stated that the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed, and the case has been taken on file by the Magistrate concerned. This complaint is to the following effect: The first accused, being a stockist, used to obtain orders’ from the parties, lift cement bags from the Companys godowns at Madras or Salem, deliver mem to the parties, collect the price of the bags and send the sums to the company by cheques or demand drafts. In this process; the first accused was entitled to commission. There were also direct sales with the parties canvassed by the 1st accused. The 1st accused was lifting stocks from 16.5.1991 to 28.1.1994 and about 22 parties were supplied with cement bags to the value of Rs.4,82,800. The 1st accused collected the proceeds from the above said 22 parties, making false representations that he was authorised to collect the sums on behalf of the Company. He misappropriated the said amounts and did not send it to the company. The 2nd accused had knowledge that the first accused had collected funds by making false representation and failed to send the amounts so collected to the Company immediately, After a long-time, the first accused issued cheques, representing the collections made by him though the amounts were collected by the 1st accused long before. When those cheques were presented for collection, the third accused, who was the Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Egmore neither credited the said cheques nor returned them. Thus, the 3rd accused connived with first accused, retained the said cheques for a longtime without honouring or dishonouring the said cheques. Thus all the accused conspired and caused wrongful loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,82,800. Apart from that, the 1st accused for the cement bag lifted by him, had issued cheques in favour of the Company, and in all issued 55 cheques. Thus all the accused conspired and caused wrongful loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,82,800. Apart from that, the 1st accused for the cement bag lifted by him, had issued cheques in favour of the Company, and in all issued 55 cheques. Believing the representation, that the cheques will be honoured, the complainant was supplying cement. All those cheques were retained by the 3rd accused without taking any action on those cheques. On 3.3.1994, the complainant received the communication that all the 45 cheques along with 10 cheques described already were dishonoured with the endorsement ‘countermanded by the drawer’. The amount totally comes to Rs.23,16,000. Therefore, the accused have committed offences under Secs. 120-B read with 420 of I.P.C. 3. The petitioner herein was subsequently impleaded as an accused in the offence. He resigned from the company on 13.2.1995. The argument is that his successor-in-office, lost the said 55 cheques on his way to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Egmore in connection with C.C.No.3654 of 1998, and thus the petitioner has nothing to do and the materials do not make out a case as against the petitioner herein. 4. Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner was summoned for interrogation relating to the crime registered, to find out as to what had happened to the 55 dishonoured cheques. The Petitioners counsel would contend that the successor of the petitioner viz., P.S.Rao gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police F-2 Egmore Police Station, stating that the cheques were missed by him and therefore, the cheques were lost long after he left the company. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the examination of the said P.Suryanarayana Rao revealed that the petitioner was the Deputy Manager of Accounts of the Company and prior to his taking charge from him, he was in charge of the cases relating to 55 cheques issued by the main accused Srinivasan in Favour of the Company and that the petitioner had made a false representation to this witness as if those cheques were missed by him. It is also stated that Suryanarayana Rao has stated before the police that the complaint in Cr.No.2313 of 1995, on the file of the F2-Egmore Police Station was given by him, about the missing of the cheques, was only at the instance and advice of the counsel handling the case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also stated that Suryanarayana Rao has stated before the police that the complaint in Cr.No.2313 of 1995, on the file of the F2-Egmore Police Station was given by him, about the missing of the cheques, was only at the instance and advice of the counsel handling the case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The other witness viz., Ganesh, accountant, who was also examined by the police, has stated that the said ‘55 dishonoured cheques’ were in the custody of the petitioner and the petitioner used to take the same representing that he wanted them for the purpose of showing the same to the counsel, and that on such occasion, all the 55 cheques were taken into his custody and were never returned by him. It is the further submission that the petitioner suddenly left the company under suspicious circumstances without informing anyone about the whereabouts of the cheques and thus the filing of a complaint regarding the missing of the cheque cannot be considered as a significant one. According to him, the entire thing has been planned by the petitioner and the guilt of the petitioner is further evidenced from the fact that the petitioner has kept guilt about the missing of the said 55 dishonoured cheques and he did not bring it to the notice of the Company, though he was the Deputy Manager in charge of the accounts for a considerable length of time and it was done at the instance of the main accused and it was a deliberate attempt to screen off the offence so as to facilitate the accused to escape from the consequence of criminal prosecution. According to him, the investigation reveals sufficient materials to show that he is also a party to the conspiracy that was hatched up between the accused Srinivasan, the agent Thangaraj, the Cement Dealer and Murugesan, and the Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Seelenaickenpatty in misappropriating and cheating the company to the tune of Rs.27,98,800. 5. The quashing of First Information Report under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code is an extreme step. It cannot be restored to on slight pretext. There must be compelling reasons to do so. The case has been investigated upon and final report has been filed implicating the petitioner. Thus, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. 5. The quashing of First Information Report under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code is an extreme step. It cannot be restored to on slight pretext. There must be compelling reasons to do so. The case has been investigated upon and final report has been filed implicating the petitioner. Thus, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. No doubt, the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R. It is only in the course of investigation with reference to the missing of 55 dishonoured cheques, and when the petitioners successor and the other accountant were examined, the role played by the petitioner had come to light. Therefore, it is not a case where it can be stated that there are no materials to proceed against the petitioner. This is not a case where it can be stated that there is any abuse of process of law or court. Nor the securing of the ends of justice would require this Court to act under Sec.482 in this connection. 6. From the submissions made on either side, it can be seen that there has been a deep rooted conspiracy plotted, hatched and perpetrated neatly, leading to the misappropriation of a substantial sum of Rs.27,00,000. The agent, the dealer, the Manager of the Bank and the employee in the complainants company have all joined hands in this drama of misappropriation. It appears that a complaint was laid as though certain cheques were missing, which is nothing but a part of the scheme. Therefore, taking the overall picture, it is clear that the request of the petitioner for quashing the proceedings under Sec.482, Crl.P.C, is in my opinion, not to be countenanced. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner to the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R 1997 S.C. 3976, to contend that the petitioner was not in control ormanagement of the company when the transaction or alleged offence had taken place. The petitioner had resigned only subsequently, and before the act of misappropriation was committed. It is only at the stage when the complaint was made by the Raasi Cements Limited under Section a drama was enacted about the missing of the cheques and at that time only, the petitioner is said to have resigned. 8. The petitioner had resigned only subsequently, and before the act of misappropriation was committed. It is only at the stage when the complaint was made by the Raasi Cements Limited under Section a drama was enacted about the missing of the cheques and at that time only, the petitioner is said to have resigned. 8. Learned Government Advocate would contend that the petitioner resigned having played his part and with a view to see that no suspicion is attached to him, the contends that it is a well orchestrated scheme of fraud and very conveniently he tendered his resignation, which is not an innocent act. Therefore, according to him, knowing that he may have to meet the ordeal of trial on day, with a view to forestall a future action, the petitioner had submitted his resignation and if that is to be taken note of and if the petitioners request is accepted at this stage of the proceedings, then it would amount to paying a premium for the offences committed by him. 9. I am of the view that the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate are rather persuasive. Merely because the petitioner has tendered resignation it cannot be taken note of as of any significance much less to hold it as a ground for quashing the proceedings against him. Therefore, on an analysis, I am satisfied that there are absolutely no grounds to order the quashing of the proceedings. 10. In the result, the petitioner is dismissed.