ORDER : Crl.R.C(MD)No.273 of 2018 has been filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.11 of 2015, praying to set aside the charge proceedings dated 21.03.2018 in C.C.No.11 of 2015. 2. Crl.O.P(MD)No.8534 of 2018 has been filed praying to quash the order, dated 09.03.2018 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Madurai, dismissing Crl.M.P.No.470 of 2017 in C.C.No.11 of 2015 and to eschew the charge sheet, dated 24.09.2015. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent police. 4. Before adverting to the merits of the petitions preferred by the accused 2 and 3, the essential facts of the case need to be extracted for better understanding of the case: (i) The Chief Regional Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Chinthamani Branch, Trichy lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI], alleging that D.Ravichandran (A1), then Senior Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Chinthamani Branch, Trichy, in collusion with K.Rajaram (A2), Secretary, M/s.Kurinji Social Welfare Society, had extended loans to 73 fictitious Self Help Groups [SHGs] based on the sponsoring made by the M/s.Kurinji Social Welfare Society, an NGO, in which accused No.2, K.Rajaram, is the Secretary. By extending loan to fictitious persons, Indian Overseas Bank, Chinthamani Branch, Trichy had been cheated to the tune of Rs.3,38,38,224/-. Out of 72 Self Help Groups, to which loan was extended by the Senior Branch Manager on the sponsoring of K.Rajaram, M/s.Kurinji Social Welfare Society, loans sanctioned to 42 Self Help Groups were totally fictitious and none of the members including the leaders could be identified. As far as, 25 Self Help Groups are concerned, except the leaders, the members are all fictitious and unidentifiable. Only 5 Self Help Groups could be identified as functional. The loan extended by the Senior Branch Manager on the sponsoring of accused No.2, K.Rajaram, was in total violation of the banking norms, such as, non-compliance of KYC norms, no pre or post sanction inspection, no proper enquiry or verification of the genuineness of the borrowers, no proper credit appraisal, etc. The bank passbooks of various banks were fabricated to show as if the SHGs are in existence and functioning. The bank passbooks of various banks were fabricated to show as if the SHGs are in existence and functioning. (ii) Based on the said complaint, dated 12.01.2015, investigation has been carried out and final report dated 24.09.2015, was laid before the Trial Court on 24.02.2016, against B.Ravichandran (A1), the then Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Chinthamani Branch, Trichy, K.Rajaram (A2), Secretary, M/s.Kurinji Social Welfare Society, M/s.Kurinji Social Welfare Society represented by its Secretary (A3), Smt.Usha (A4), former Secretary of M/s.Kurinji Social Welfare Society, Smt.C.Kalpana(A5), former Project Officer of M/s.Kurinji Social Welfare Society, Smt.Lavanya, Staff of M/s.Kurinji Social Welfare Society. That apart, the final report also indicates the names of K.S.Ganesan (A7), Jeyanth Gopal Ranjan (A8), the then Assistant Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Chinthamani Branch, Trichy, Joel Ashoirwad Kohta (A9), the then Assistant Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Chinthamani Branch, Trichy, R.Durai Rajan (A10), Clerk cum Cashier, Indian Overseas Bank, Chinthamani Branch, Trichy and K.Venkataraman (A11), Clerk cum Cashier, Indian Overseas Bank, Chinthamani Branch, Trichy. In column No.2 of the final report under the caption 'accused persons not send up for trial'. 5. The sum and substance of the grievance raised by the petitioners herein is that the Trial Court while exercising its jurisdiction in framing the charge based on the final report and the documents relied on by the prosecution, has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances properly, which has lead to miscarriage of justice. While the petitioners have only introduced the self help groups and the beneficiaries are 73 self help groups, instead of prosecuting the beneficiaries, who have received the loan amounts and failed to pay, the petitioners who have just introduced the self help groups, have been victimized. The petitioners would further contend that the bank officials, who were privy of the crime, are not sent for trial, but shown as accused in column No.2 of the final report, whereas the petitioners, who have nothing to do with the crime were issued with the charge proceedings. Referring the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pooja Pal v. Union of India reported in 2016(3) SCC 135 , learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the dicta laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for issuing charge proceedings, has been totally violated. Referring the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pooja Pal v. Union of India reported in 2016(3) SCC 135 , learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the dicta laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for issuing charge proceedings, has been totally violated. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would specifically submit that from the documents collected by the prosecution, it is apparently clear that apart from A.1, several other bank officials are also involved in the scam of Rs.3,38,00,000/- syphoned through 73 bogus animators and representatives of 73 non-existing self help groups. The persons who were shared the loot, are not arrayed as accused. 6. Therefore, apart from revision petition to set aside the charge proceedings, criminal original petition is also filed to quash the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application to eschew the charge following the principle laid down in Pooja Pal's case. The petitioners herein have also taken out another miscellaneous petition to pass an interim order of attaching the properties of (1) B.Ravichandran (A.1); (2) K.S.Ganesan, II Line Manager, IOB; (3) Jayant Gopal Ranjan, II Line Manager, IOB; (4) Joel Ashoirwas Kohta, II Line Manager, IOB; (5) Ms.Vani, Senior Manager, Credit Monitoring Department, IOB Regional Office, Tiruchi; (6) Ms.Monisha, Assistant Manager, IOB Regional Office, Tiruchi; (7) K.Venkataraman, Cashier, IOB, Chinthamani Branch, Tiruchi; (8) R.Durairajan, Cashier, IOB, Chinthamani Branch, Tiruchi; (9) 73 Bogus animators; (10) 73 bogus representatives; and (11) 73 non-existing SHGs as detained in the First Information Report, dated 12.01.2015. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases would submit that the above petitions filed by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, are frivolous and vexatious. These petitions are filed with an ulterior motive to delay the trial process and mislead the Court putting forth improper and irrelevant facts. It is also pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases that before filing these three petitions, the petitioners filed W.P.No.27637 of 2017 with the very same prayer and tried to get an interim order of stay. Having failed in their attempt, a petition before the Trial Court to eschew the charge and the petition before the High Court to quash the charge, have been filed. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police and perused the records. 9. Having failed in their attempt, a petition before the Trial Court to eschew the charge and the petition before the High Court to quash the charge, have been filed. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police and perused the records. 9. The relief sought in all these petitions are one and the same, but couched cleverly and filed before different forums. The materials placed before the Trial Court and the statements of the self help group organizers would clearly show that the first petitioner, namely, Rajaram, as the representative of M/s.Kurinji Social Welfare Society and his staff, who were arrayed as accused Nos.4 to 7 have promised to gullible people that they will arrange loan from the bank and had obtained particulars of those people either who were organizers of self help groups or individuals. A2 and his associates fabricated documents as if these 73 self help groups are active and involved in upliftment of women. Further,, had recommended these self help groups for loan under special drive initiated by the bank. For the said purpose, bank accounts have been fabricated, members list of the self help groups have been fabricated containing fictitious names and records were created to show as if these 73 self help groups are genuine and in existence. Persons representing the self help groups have denied their involvement in availing loan. They have indicated the persons, who are arrayed as accused for obtaining their photographs, ration card, etc. promising to get loan. Some of them were given few thousand rupees. But only when they received demand notice from the bank, they have realized that the accused persons herein under the leadership of the first petitioner Rajaram (accused No.2) and M/s.Kurinji Social Welfare Society (accused No.3) had dishonestly induced them to be signatories to loan applications, with fake numbers. Statements of witnesses, i.e., Vembarasi (L.W.17), Smt. Prema (L.W.19), Sharmila Begam (L.W.20), Smt. Jabitha Banu (L.W.21), Smt. Prema (L.W.24) and Smt.Jesintha Mary (L.W.26) are if proved will clearly lead to conviction of the petitioners and other accused. In the said circumstances, non-prosecution of the bank officials, who were subordinate to accused No.1 and were under probation, is justifiable and the reason given by the prosecution agency is acceptable one. In the said circumstances, non-prosecution of the bank officials, who were subordinate to accused No.1 and were under probation, is justifiable and the reason given by the prosecution agency is acceptable one. However, it is always open to the prosecution as well as the Court, while in the course of trial, if some strong incriminating evidence come to light, they may be added as accused by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the charge against the petitioners cannot be eschewed just because the prosecution has not arrayed certain persons as accused for want of material evidence, sufficient to convict them. By pointing accusing finger on other persons, these petitioners are trying to protract the trial as well as to torpedo the criminal prosecution. 10. The first petitioner herein, who is alleged to have swindled around Rs.3,38,00,000/-, had filed the petition for a direction to attach the property of first accused and others only to mislead and cover his fraud. A.2 is the main beneficiary in the fraud. He had divested the ill-gotten money for other purposes. From the final report, it can be seen that the first petitioner Rajaram, from and out of the loan amount sanctioned in favour of 73 fictitious self help groups, has paid Rs.60 lakhs to one Subburaj and got himself inducted as one of the trustee in M/s.P.T.V. Educational Trust. He has paid Rs.50 lakhs to one K.N.Subramanian to become the Managing Trustee in M/s.Thenammal Achi Educational Trust, Dindigul. He has repaid the loan and closed the OCC account and term loan availed by him in the name of M/s.Thenammal Mineral Waters Foods to an extent of Rs.36 lakhs. Therefore, it is his property which has to be attached as the trail of crime proceeds indicates to these properties. Therefore, looking at any angle, this Court finds no bona fide in these petitions as well as no legal substance. Therefore, these petitioners are liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, Crl.R.C(MD)No.273 of 2018, Crl.O.P(MD)No.8534 of 2018, Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.3825 and 3826 of 2018 are dismissed, with the direction to the Court below that the trial in the case should be taken on day to day basis and dispose of the case within a period of 8 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. In the result, Crl.R.C(MD)No.273 of 2018, Crl.O.P(MD)No.8534 of 2018, Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.3825 and 3826 of 2018 are dismissed, with the direction to the Court below that the trial in the case should be taken on day to day basis and dispose of the case within a period of 8 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The prosecution, if finds that the crime proceeds have been laundered, shall take appropriate action under the Money Laundering Act and secure the same in accordance with law.