M NAINAR Vs. VARDHARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are arrayed as Accused No.8 and 23 in CC No.71 of 2006 on the file of the Court, of Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District and they along with 25 other accused are facing prosecution for the al-leged commission of the offence under Sec-tion 406 and 420 of IPC. The Respondent herein has filed the abovesaid private com-plaint which was taken cognizance by the jurisdictional Magistrate.

(2.) The averments made in the complaint would disclose that the complainant is a practising advocate at Tiruvannamalai and the petitioners and some of the accused are office bearers and former office bearers of Tamil Nadu Retrenched census Employees' Association. The said union originally ap-proached a lawyer to prosecute their case before the Tamil Nadu State Administra-tive Tribunal and since he failed to perform his duties, the services of the respondent/ complainant was engaged. The complainant had travelled to Delhi number of times in respect of the appeal preferred by the said association before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and he had spent lot of time and energy in conducting the said case.

(3.) It is further averred in tht complaint that the respondent/complainant had stayed at New Delhi for more than 100 days and made visits to Delhi by train journey. All the accused had assured and agreed to pay the fees payable to the senior advocate at New Delhi who had conducted the case be-fore the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also to two other counsel. In respect of the respondent/complainant, all the accused had assured that they will provide him a new TATA Sumo car and also settle his fees amounting to a sum of Rs.5,00 000. How-ever, the first petitioner/accused No.8 had paid a sum of Rs. 12,000 only and accused Nos. 1, 2 and 14 had paid meagre sum of money by way of fees. Subsequently a meet-ing of the accused were convened wherein the accused have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 to the respondent/complainant and in this regard accused No.l and 2 had is-sued a cheque which on presentation got dishonoured and therefore, complaints in C.C.No.4293 and 4294 of 1999 were filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore Chennai.