JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: Criminal Original petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to C.C.Nos.38 and 1 of 2019, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthani and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.) Common Order 1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the records relating to C.C.Nos.38 and 1 of 2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthani and quash the same. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these Criminal Original Petitions are as follows:- The petitioner is a medical Doctor by profession and she is also a tutor. The petitioner joined the College of the first accused as an Associate Professor in the Department of Anatomy and she worked there for a period of eight months, when the case was registered. 3. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant for recovery of the fourth year fees collected by D.D.Medical College and Hospital, in F.I.R.No.65 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent Police, under Sectins 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The same was culminated in C.C.No.38 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani. 4. Heard Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2. There is no representation on behalf of the third respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was employed as an Associate Professor and she has nothing to do with the affairs of the management and administration of the College. Hence, offence under Sections 406 and 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code will not attract. 6. Only allegation against the petitioner is the demand of money. The petitioner had worked in the College from 1/9/2012 to 31/7/2013. By that time, admissions for the academic year 2012 – 2013 had completed. Moreover, neither the First Information Report nor the statement of any of the witnesses under Section 161 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure attribute any specific overt act against the petitioner to make out any of the charges levelled against the petitioner. 7. By that time, admissions for the academic year 2012 – 2013 had completed. Moreover, neither the First Information Report nor the statement of any of the witnesses under Section 161 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure attribute any specific overt act against the petitioner to make out any of the charges levelled against the petitioner. 7. No doubt when the final report is filed, the Court will not normally exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by appreciating the probative value of the statements or evidence collected by the prosecution and at the same time when the entire Final Report is taken on its face value do not constitute any offence against the petitioner, continuing the prosecution against the petitioner is nothing but waste of time and a futile exercise. In 1992 SUPP (1) SUPREME COURT CASES – 335 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS, the Hon'ble Apex Court has set out the following guidelines for quashing the complaint. (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 prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (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. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. Considering the above submissions and all the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered view that pendency of the proceedings against the petitioner is clearly an abuse of process of Court and it requires interference of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and proceedings in C.C.Nos.38 and 1 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthani is hereby quashed in so far as this petitioner is concerned. The Trial Court shall proceed as against the remaining accused as per the law as expeditiously as possible. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.