Judgment :- The petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-10 out of 14 accused, is facing trial for the alleged offence under Sections 408, 420, 465, 467 and 468 r/w 120 (b) IPC and she has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings pending in C.C.No. 2290 of 2003 on the file of the leaned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. Mr. V. Madavan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as the Branch Manager of Karur Vishya Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai. It is submitted that she has been implicated on the allegation that the petitioner has conspired along with other co-accused while she was functioning as the Manager in the said Bank, in which, the other co-accused opened accounts in fictitious names for the purpose of encashing cheques issued by Shriram Chits Ltd. It is further alleged that after opening the bank accounts in fictitious names, the money was either withdrawn or transferred to the family concerns of A-1. It is submitted that the further allegation is that the cheques for withdrawing the amount and mandate letter issued for the transfer of amount from one account to another account of the family concerns of A-1 are forged document issued by fictitious persons. The learned counsel submitted that the offence of forgery and other offences alleged against A-1 to A-9 and A-11 to A-14 and as far as the petitioner is concerned, she has been implicated with the aid of Section 120(b) IPC. 3. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that there is absolutely no material whatsoever available on record to implicate the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A10 for the offence of conspiracy. It is submitted that the bank has also not come forward with any grievance or complaint against the petitioner herein and the petitioner had been continued to work as a Bank Manager and subsequently, she joined in another Bank, namely, IndusInd bank in the year 2006 in Scale IV as Chief Manager and even as on date she is serving in the said bank with the unblemished record of service. Therefore, it is contended that the entire materials including the First Information Report and the Statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. do not disclose any offence against the petitioner much less the offence of conspiracy and as such it is contended that even if the entire allegations available on record taken in its entirety to be true, no offence made out against the petitioner and therefore, allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court. The learned counsel would also place reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention: .(1) Firozuddin Basheeruddin V. State of kerala reported in (2001) 7 SCC 596 at para 23 (for conspiracy) .(2) K.T.M.S.Mohd. V. Union of India ; (for conspiracy) .(3) L.George & Others V. State rep. by the Superintendent of Police reported in; (for conspiracy and mis-joinder of parties); and .(4) Solaiappa Gounder & Others. V. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Inspector of Police reported in; (for misjoinder of charges). 4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that as far as the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-10 is concerned, the alleged offences of misappropriation, cheating and forgery were committed by the other co-accused while the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the Bank. It is contended that the allegation as far as the petitioner is concerned, the Investigating Officer has examined one witness, namely, L.W.48, Kalyanaraman, the successor of the petitioner as Branch Manager of Karur Vishya Bank, Anna Nagar, Chennai, and in his statement he has stated about the modus operandi of the other accused for committing the above said offences and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has stated that during the period of the commission of the above said offences, the petitioner/A-10 was working as Manager of that particular Branch. It is submitted that no other materials available on record in respect of the petitioner herein. 5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record including the First Information Report and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 6. It is submitted that no other materials available on record in respect of the petitioner herein. 5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record including the First Information Report and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 6. The crux of the allegation leveled against the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A10, is that she has facilitated the other co-accused to open accounts in fictitious names for the purpose of encashing the cheques issued by Shriram Chits Ltd., and the cheques and the mandate letters issued for the transfer of funds from one account to another account of the family concerns of A-1 were forged one and thereby the other accused, viz., A-1 to A-9 and A-11 to A-14 committed the offence of cheating, forgery and falsification of accounts and the petitioner has been implicated for the allegation of conspiracy. 7. At the outset, this court is constrained to state that there is not an iota of material available on record to implicate the accused for the offence of conspiracy. It is pertinent to be noted that even in the counter filed by the respondent, there is absolutely no whisper about any specific allegation or any material implicating the petitioner herein. The entire perusal of the materials available on record including the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not disclose any offence much less the offence of conspiracy against the petitioners herein. The entire prosecution case revolving around the allegations leveled against A-1 to A-9 and A-11 to A-14. It is pertinent to be noted that not even a single lapse on the part of the petitioner alleged by the prosecution. The undisputed fact remains that only one witness from the concerned Bank was examined, viz., Kalyanaraman, who was the successor of the petitioner/A-10 and he has also not whispered a word against the petitioner implicating her for any lapse on her part or for facilitating the other accused to commit the offence, as stated above, except stating that the petitioner was the Manager of the Bank during the relevant time. Therefore, in the absence of any materials available on record to implicate the accused, this court cannot infer or presume that the petitioner has conspired along with other accused and facilitated them to commit the offence alleged against them. 8. Therefore, in the absence of any materials available on record to implicate the accused, this court cannot infer or presume that the petitioner has conspired along with other accused and facilitated them to commit the offence alleged against them. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a landmark decision in State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 has incorporated certain guidelines for quashing the proceedings and the relevant guidelines in respect of the instant case are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prime facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. …………. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. The above guidelines are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in the case on hand also even if the entire allegations contained in the First Information Report and other materials available on record taken in its face value, no offence made out much less the offence of conspiracy and as such allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of court. Therefore, this court is constrained to quash the proceedings in so far the petitioner/A-10 is concerned and accordingly, the proceedings pending in C.C.No.2920 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. This petition is ordered accordingly. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.