Sangeetha v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the charges framed against the petitioner in CC No.181 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Tambaram.

¶2The crux of the allegations, as reflected in the charges, is that the first accused is the husband of the petitioner / second accused. It is alleged that the first accused, while employed under the defacto complainant, dishonestly removed the goods belonging to the defacto complainant on the pretext that he had received orders from third parties. It is further alleged that he misappropriated the said goods and sold them in the open market under the name "Sangeetha Agencies" in the name of his wife, namely, the petitioner /second accused, thereby defrauding the defacto complainant.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, except for a bald statement made by the defacto complainant, there is absolutely no material collected during the course of investigation to show that the petitioner was involved in the sale of the goods or that she had any knowledge of the alleged misappropriation. It was further contended that the three cheques alleged to have been issued in the name of the petitioner do not even form part of the final Page3 of 5 report and, therefore, there are no materials warranting the framing of charges against her.

¶4This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).

¶5A perusal of the materials placed before this Court reveals that P.W.1, in his statement, has specifically referred to the involvement of the petitioner / second accused in the alleged transaction. Whether such material is sufficient to ultimately secure a conviction is a matter to be decided only after a full-fledged trial. At the stage of considering a petition to quash the charges, this Court cannot examine the adequacy or sufficiency of the evidence. If there is even an iota of material connecting the accused with the alleged offence, and even if two views are possible, the Court must lean in favour of permitting the trial to proceed rather than aborting it at the threshold.

¶6In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the charges framed against the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the factual and legal contentions available to her before the trial Court during the course of trial. Page4 of 5

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20-07-2026 av To

¶1The learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Tambaram.

¶2The Assistant Commissioner of Police Tambaram Range, Chennai-45.

¶3The Inspector of Police Tambaram Police Station, Chennai-45.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o19322oofo2026 D.BHARATHAoCHAKRAVARTHY,oJ. av CRLoOPoNo.o19322oofo2026o ando CRL.M.P.No.12843oofo2026 20-07-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and CRL.M.P.No.12843 of 2026 Sangeetha W/o. Gunasekaran, No.9/234, Othavadai Street, Ayyappanthangal, Chennai 600 056. Presently residing at Door No.4, Papangkadur, Ayampalayam, Erode District-638455. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Tambaram Range, Chennai-45. 2. State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Tambaram Police Station, Chennai-45. Crime NO.1549/2018 3. N. Baskar S/o. Natarajan, No.1, Patel Street, Velu Street, West Tambaram, Chennai-45. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for the records relating to the charges framed against the petitioner in CC No.181 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-1, Tambaram dated 14-5-2025 and quash the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Sairaman For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 & R2 Page2 of 5