MARUTHAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.9 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(2) of IPC, as against the petitioner.

(2.) Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence as alleged by the second respondent herein. Even according to the second respondent, the alleged occurrence was taken place in the month of March to October, 2017 and the complaint lodged only on 11.03.2020. Therefore there is absolutely no explanation for the belated complaint lodged by the second respondent. Even then, the first respondent mechanically without even conducting any enquiry registered the FIR.2.1. He further submitted that there are totally three accused in which the petitioner is arrayed as first accused. The entire allegations are civil in nature, since even according to the second respondent the petitioner borrowed money and did not repay the said amount. Therefore, all the allegations are civil in nature and it does not constitute any offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. In fact, in the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein, the second respondent is arrayed as accused in Crime No.3 of 2019 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Ariyalur. In the said case, the second respondent filed anticipatory bail petition and also quash petition to quash the FIR in Crime No.3 of 2019 before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.25933 of 2019 and Crl.O.P. No.30409 of 2019 respectively and both the petitions were dismissed by this Court.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner and two others are doing business in the name and style of Kavitha Enterprises and Varaga steels. They borrowed a sum of Rs.33,85,500/- during their business. The entire amount have been transferred directly to their accounts on 20.02.2017 and 27.03.2017. When the second respondent asked for return of the amount, they assured that they will purchase the material for the new business to be started by the second respondent at Viruthachalam. While being so, in the month of October 2017, again the accused person assured that all the materials would be purchased by them for the business to be started by the second respondent at Viruthachalam. Believing the words, again on 23.10.2017, 27.10.2017, 31.10.2017, 06.11.2017 and 23.02.2018, total sum of Rs.18,50,000/- have been transferred to the accused accounts. Thereafter, they have purchased the material worth about Rs.7,00,000/- and assured that they will return the remaining balance amount, thereby the accused persons are liable to pay a sum of Rs.43,35,500/-.