A son cannot be prosecuted solely because his mother used his cheque, absent evidence of participation.

The complainant alleged that accused No. 1, the petitioner’s mother, promised to arrange a site and received a total of ₹11,40,000 from her; cheques issued in connection with the transaction were dishonoured.

The complaint did not allege that the petitioner personally received money.

During the investigation, CW6 stated that the petitioner’s mother had obtained a cheque for ₹30,000 from him and given it to the complainant.

The petitioner, arraigned as accused No. 3, sought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the charge sheet for offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C. No. 58/2019.

1. Whether the charge-sheet materials disclosed a sufficient basis to prosecute the petitioner for criminal breach of trust or cheating under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Whether the petitioner could be prosecuted merely because his mother allegedly obtained and passed on his ₹30,000 cheque in connection with the complainant’s transaction.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings.

The alleged offences were Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

Prosecution requires material connecting the accused to the alleged transaction; a familial relationship with the principal accused, without a sufficient allegation or material showing the petitioner’s participation, is not by itself a basis for prosecution.

The judgment cited no precedent.

The Court found that the complaint attributed the promise to arrange a site and receipt of the ₹11,40,000 to the petitioner’s mother, not to the petitioner; it also identified no direct transaction between the petitioner and the complainant.

Although CW6’s statement referred to a ₹30,000 cheque signed by the petitioner, the evidence indicated that his mother obtained and delivered the cheque.

The Court considered that circumstance insufficient to establish the petitioner’s participation in the alleged site transaction or to justify prosecution merely because he was the accused No. 1’s son.

It quashed the proceedings against him in C.C. No. 58/2019.