JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the charges framed dated 18.07.2018 in C.C.No.724 of 2003 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate III at Coimbatore and pass orders. Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the charges framed dated 18.07.2018 in C.C.No.724 of 2003 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate III at Coimbatore and pass orders.) Common Order: 1. These two Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the criminal complaint against these petitioners pending on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore, for alleged offences under Sections 120(B), 465, 468, 471, 420 and 109 I.P.C. 2. The substance of the final reports dated 16.04.2002 and 25.06.2002 is that, during the period between February 2001 and January 2002, the first accused Arun Chinnasamy @ Chinnusami with an intention to cheat the public along with other accused persons conspired and floated a company by name “M/s.ATM Infotech”. To impress upon the public, created fake Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), as if, ATM Infotech have a MoU with a Company at Paris under the name, ‘Brain Data System’ for Data processing. In the said MoU, the 2nd accused Senthil @ Senthil Kumaran had affixed his signature as witness to the execution of the MoU by the first accused on behalf of ‘ATM Infotech’ and one Paul Susan, on behalf of ‘Brain Data System’, knowing fully well that there is no Company at Paris in the name ‘Brain Data System’ and the person Paul Susan is an fictitious person. Attractive advertisements were made in Dailies and other mode of offering moonshine in short period for the Franchisee, who invest in their scheme called Data Processing. Nearly 2500 persons invested about Rs.16 crores with the ATM Infotech. The money so collected were deposited in the Accounts opened at REPCO Bank by the first accused in his name, his relatives name and in fictitious names like Senthamizhan and Ponnathal, in connivance with the Manager of REPCO Bank, Ramu @ Ramasamy – the third accused. Initially, the fraud came to light on the Complaint by one Thiru.Balu alleging cheating and offence under Prize Chits and Money circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. Later, the suo motu complaint registered at Singanallur Police Station in Crime No.39 of 2002. Initially, the fraud came to light on the Complaint by one Thiru.Balu alleging cheating and offence under Prize Chits and Money circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. Later, the suo motu complaint registered at Singanallur Police Station in Crime No.39 of 2002. Both the complaints were taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, for both the complaints, common Final Report filed 16/04/2002 and on further investigation, additional Final Report on 25/06/2002 were filed. 3. The petitioners, who are the 2nd and 3rd accused filed petitions to discharge claiming that they are innocent. The 2nd accused, who is the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.5510/2019 contented that, he is not the Technical Director of the First accused company. He is only a paid employee. He cannot be prosecuted for signing the MoU, which he did on the instruction of his employer. He is not the guarantor for the car loan availed by the 1st accused in the name of Senthamizhan. The 3rd accused, who is the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2830/2019 contented that, he as the Manager of the REPCO Bank, permitted ATM Infotech and others to open accounts in his Bank on proper application and submission of necessary documents. He is not privy to the alleged conspiracy to cheat or fabricate documents. Their applications for discharge was dismissed by the Court below on 16/07/2018 by assigning reasons based on the records. 4. On the same grounds, but couched differently, the present petitions to quash the complaints are filed. 5. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent/State submitted that, the accused by filing these petitions deliberately protracting the proceedings. These two petitioners are the key accused in the crime who had aided the First Accused to fabricate MoU and open bank accounts in fictitious names using fake documents. They have shared the booty and the documents relied by the prosecution which were collected on the information given by the 1st accused speaks volume about the role of these petitioners in the crime and their share in the proceeds of the crime. Statements of about 2930 witnesses were recorded and several hundreds of documents collected which implicates these petitioners involved in the crime. It is also submitted that, the appointment of retired High Court Judge for disbursement of the money to the investors prorate will not exonerate the petitioners from prosecution. 6. Statements of about 2930 witnesses were recorded and several hundreds of documents collected which implicates these petitioners involved in the crime. It is also submitted that, the appointment of retired High Court Judge for disbursement of the money to the investors prorate will not exonerate the petitioners from prosecution. 6. This Court, after due consideration of the materials placed, find that, the Learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the report on file and on prima facie satisfaction, had proceed to frame charges. These petitioners had successfully obstructing the progress of the trial for the past 10 years. The materials relied by the prosecution prima facie satisfies that, about 2500 persons believing the promise made by the 1st accused that their investment with the first accused in the Data Processing Business will give high returns had invested their money. To make them believe his promise, the 1st accused has claimed that, his Company has entered into a MoU with a Company in Paris. In that MoU, the 2nd accused/ petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.5510/2019 is the witness. It is not the case of this accused that he signed the MoU as witness after the 1st accused and Paul Susan signed. His case is that, he signed on the request of the first accused. This is a clear admission of the crime that, this petitioner aided the first accused in the crime of cheating and fabrication of documents. Likewise, the 3rd accused the Manager of the REPCO Bank though claims that, he, in the discharge of his normal duty had permitted the first accused and others to open accounts as 'B' class members of the Bank. The records indicates that, account opening forms of these accounts holders were not opened after obtaining the necessary documents. The first accused admits in his confession that, these signs of the fictitious account holders were made by him and for that, the 4th accused Ramasamy, Manager of the REPCO Bank aided him. The money collected from the public were deposited in these accounts and later the money deposited in these accounts were shown as securities to avail car loans. The prosecution to prove these facts have collected necessary documents and the opinion of the hand writing experts. 7. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court finds that these petitions are filed only to protract the trial and it is a clear abuse of process of law. The prosecution to prove these facts have collected necessary documents and the opinion of the hand writing experts. 7. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court finds that these petitions are filed only to protract the trial and it is a clear abuse of process of law. Hence, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and if the accused persons adopt any further dialectic tactics to delay the trial, the bail granted to them may be cancelled following the process of law, to ensure speedy trial. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.