Sekar, Govindarajulu Naidu and Anandha Bhaskaran vs State

M. Karpagavinaygam, J.—The Petitioners have filed these petitions to quash the proceedings relating to the Crime Nos. 878 and 879 of

1996 pending on the file of the Thirupapuliyur Police Station, registered on the basis of the complaints given by the second Respondent in the

respective petitions.

Crime No. 878 of 1996 relates to the private complaint filed by one Ramanathan, the second Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.13417 of 1997 and

Crime No. 879 of 1996 relates to the private complaint filed by one Pandian, the second Respondent in Crl.O.P. No. 13416 of 1997. Both the

private complaints were filed before the Judicial Magistrate No. l, Cuddalore for the offences punishable under Sections 406,409, and 420 of the

Indian Penal Code.

On entertaining these complaints, the learned Judicial Magistrate forwarded the same to the first Respondent police for investigation u/s 156(3)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After registration of these complaints in Crime Nos. 878 and 879 of 1996, the first Respondent police

prepared the First Information Report on 21.11.1996 and took up the case the case for investigation.

Heard the counsel for the Petitioners and the second Respondent as well as the Government Advocate. Though several grounds were urged by

the counsel for the Petitioner, inclusive of the pendency of the Civil case, with reference to the same transaction, I am able to persuade myself to

agree with the counsel for the Petitioners to the only one ground that the allegation in the First Information Reports which were registered on the

direction of the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the complaints, are not constituting the offences alleged in the First Information Report.

According to the crime No. 1878 of 1996, the case of the complainant is this: The complainant, the second Respondent in Crl.O.P. No. 13417

of 1997 was introduced to A1 and A2 by A3. The represented that they have started a company in Periamedu Village and requested the

complainant to Join as a partner. Accordingly, the complainant invested Rs.4.00 lakhs in the said company, and with reference to this, an

agreement was entered into on 1.12.1991. Subsequently, the complainant gave Rs 6 00 laksh on various occasions as loan to the accused. But,

contrary to the promise, the accused did not make payment of the loan and they never also cared to give the profit amount derived from the

company. So, on 3.7.1994 a panchayat was convened and on the advice of the panchayatdhars, all the accused agreed to pay Rs.16.25 laksh

towards the loan amount and interest. Accordingly A1 gave two cheques with two dates for Rs. 14,25,000/-and a demand draft for Rs. 2.00

lakhs. On 20.1.1995 the Petitioners came to the complainant and requested for the return of the cheques, stating, that they were not able to

deposit the said amount in the bank and promised that they would give the cash soon. On the basis of this representation, the two cheques for Rs.

14.24 lakhs were returned to the accused Petitioners. But, the Petitioners did not make any payment as promised.

As far as the crime No.879 of 1996 is concerned, the averments in the complaint given by the second Respondent in Crl.O.P. No. 13416 of

1997 are more or less same to the previous one. In this complaint also it was mentioned that the cheques given by the Petitioners for the sum of

Rs. 14.25 lakhs to the complainant were returned to the Petitioners on the representation made by the Petitioners that they would pay back the

amount in cash, and that as promised, they have not given the amount.

Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that with reference to the same transactions both the second Respondents have filed a civil suit and the

same is pending. However, I do not propose to hold that the proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground that the civil matter is pending. I

am only called upon to decide whether the allegations contained in these complaints would attract the offences alleged.

The representation made by the accused to the complainants when they got back the cheques, that they would make the cash payment in future,

may not constitute the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Unless, it is mentioned

that the said representation was made with a dishonest intention as a result of which any valuable property is parted with, it cannot be contended

that the alleged offences are made out.

Therefore, the First Information Reports in Crime Nos. 878 and 879 of 1996 on the file of the first Respondent police are liable to the quashed

and the same are quashed.

In the result, the Petitioners are allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P Nos. 5064 to 5067 of 1997 are closed.