Full Judgment
2. A case was registered on a complaint dated 14.05.2008, wherein, the informant had informed :- "That on 14.05.2008, a complaint was lodged by one Mrs.S.Jagadhambal wife of Mr.Satya Seelan, with the Sub Inspector of Police, Orleanpet Police Station, Puducherry against petitioners 1 to 3. In the said complaint the defacto complainant had alleged that the third petitioner had approached her and explained that the fourth petitioner herein was running its operations in Chennai and if she invested Rs.33,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand only) she would be given a Gold and Silver coin. It is further alleged that the third petitioner had made the defacto complainant to part with the above said amount by making a false representation that after a span of two to three years the said Gold coins if sold through internet the defacto complainant could earn several lakhs as profit. It is further alleged in the complaint that the third petitioner would conduct training sessions every week in her office premises at Thiruvallur Street, Puducherry. It is further alleged that the defacto complainant had recently come to know that the second petitioner was acting as the Head Agent and the first petitioner was acting as the President of the fourth petitioner. It is further alleged in the complaint by the defacto complainant that she had received one Gold coin and silver coin in a sealed box through courier in June 2007. It is further alleged that the defacto complainant had come to know that under the leadership of the first petitioner many persons were acting as agents of the fourth petitioner and several persons were cheated and induced to part their money. It is further alleged that the defacto complainant had come to know that like her, one
1) Ms.Yuva Rani,
2) Mrs.Kousalya
3) Mrs.Adhi Lakshmi,
4) Mrs.Latchumy and
5) Mrs.Jayalakshmi and some others had been allegedly cheated."
3. In all, as many as 163 similar complaints were received by the respondent.
4. Mr.Ashok Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, who seek quash of proceedings in Crime No.190 of 2008 pending on the file of the respondent would submit that monies due to all the complainants had been paid, that such complainants had informed their satisfaction and also informed that they are not intending to pursue the complaints given by them. The learned Senior counsel also would submit that in such circumstances, this court would avoid undue hardship to the petitioners and quash the proceedings in Crime No.190 of 2008 pending on the file of the respondent.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) was put on notice and upon instructions confirmed the factual position informed by the learned Senior counsel.
6. In the above circumstances, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State and Others (2009-1-L.W.(Crl).137) are relevant. " In our view, the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The First Information Report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the First Information Report was the basis of the investigation by the Police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. We do not suggest that while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court could not have refused to quash the First Information Report, but what we do say is that the matter could have been considered by the High Court with greater pragmatism in the facts of the case. As we have indicated hereinbefore, the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., or Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case."
7. Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above case, this court quashes the proceedings in Crime No.190/2008. However, it is made clear that the quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.190/2008 will not be a bar to investigate any fresh complaints of similar nature.
8. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the above observation. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.