Anusuya vs. The Inspector Of Police

Held

The Court held that the allegations against the petitioners were serious in nature, involving misappropriation of a significant sum. It noted that the petitioners were erstwhile employees and the first petitioner was an accounts officer. The Court found that the FIR contained serious allegations and there appeared to be materials available to constitute the offenses. The investigation was pending and required elaborate inquiry. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioners' contentions could not be considered at this stage and the matter warranted further investigation. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, finding no merit in the petitioners' plea for quashing the FIR.

Facts

The petitioners, Anusuya and Sudha, former employees of Designers Shelter Studio, filed a petition to quash an FIR registered against them for offenses under Sections 61(2) and 316(4) of the BNS. The FIR was based on a complaint by the second respondent, Anwar Sathik, alleging misappropriation of Rs. 40,00,000/- by the petitioners. The first petitioner joined in June 2023 as an accounts officer, handling accounts, GST, and IT returns. The second petitioner had been employed since 2008. The petitioners claimed the complaint was false, motivated by a dispute over unpaid salaries and a prior GST raid on the second respondent's office where Rs. 1,03,00,000/- was seized. They alleged no specific allegations were made against them in the FIR and that the complaint was filed out of vengeance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No. 5 of 2025, registered by the first respondent police, is liable to be quashed concerning the petitioners, based on the allegations of misappropriation and the procedural history. The petitioners argued that the FIR was based on a false complaint, lacked specific allegations against them, and was filed with vengeance due to an employment dispute and a prior GST raid. They contended that the allegations were unsubstantiated and the matter needed no further investigation. The first respondent (police) argued that the FIR was registered based on a valid complaint for serious offenses and was under investigation, thus the petition should be dismissed at this stage. The second respondent (complainant) contended that the petitioners admitted to misappropriating funds for their own benefit, and therefore, the FIR was justified and should not be quashed during the ongoing investigation.