CHITRAKALA Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal original petition has been filed seeking the relief to quash the First Information Report in crime No.8 of 2020, dated 14.03.2020 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioners.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that based on the complaint given by the second respondent, the first respondent police registered a case in crime No.8 of 2020, dated 14.03.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 506(i), 447, 448, 420 IPC. He would further submit that originally the father of the second respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai in S.T.C.No.848 of 2016, wherein he alleged that the first accused borrowed a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- on 20.05.2016 for his urgent need. Now for the said incident, a complaint has been preferred by the second respondent with imaginary and un-sustainable facts. The first accused did not borrowed money neither from the second respondent nor from the father of the second respondent. The alleged occurrence was said to have been taken place in the year of 2016 and except the Section 420 IPC, all other offences are hit by the Section 468 Cr.P.C. The petitioners did not commit any offence as alleged by the second respondent and thereby, the case has been registered against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and liable to quash.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent would submit that the above referred FIR has been registered only as per the direction given by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17714 of 2019, dated 29.11.2019. Before passing such order, this Court considered the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai in R.No.1850 of 2017 and therefore, it cannot be said that the first respondent registered the case with malicious intention. Further, in respect to the alleged occurrence, both the parties are entered into a compromise, for which joint compromise memo has also been preferred by the second respondent, further the contents of the memo is elicited the fact that the petitioners committed the offence as alleged by the second respondent.