K V BALAMURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with the above petition to call for the records in Crl.MP No. 3406 of 2002 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the order dated 13-08-2002 passed on the protest petition for re-investigation in MP No. 3406 of 2002.

(2.) Heard both sides. The petitioner is the accused in a private complaint filed by one Govindasamy, Partner of Karuna Traders before the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and the same was forwarded by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. to the first respondent/police for investigation. The respondent/police has registered a case in Crime No. 491 of 2001 for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 506 (ii) r/w. Section 120 B of IPC. The respondent/police, after investigation has filed a final report before the said Magistrate stating that the dispute is civil in nature. The de-facto complainant namely Govindasamy has filed a protest petition for re-investigation in Crl.MP No. 3406 of 2002 on 13-08-2002 and requested the magistrate to direct further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai – 8, which was allowed by the court below. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The facts of the case in nutshell is that the de-facto complainant has received scrap steel from the petitioner on the promise made by the petitioner to supply more scrap. One of the partners of Karuna Traders namely Chelladurai has paid an advance of Rs.26 lakhs to the petitioner, but the petitioner has not supplied the goods as promised. The said amount was treated as loan and the petitioner herein has executed 10 promissory notes for a total value of Rs.40 lakhs in favour of the said Chelladurai. According to the de-facto complainant, after receipt of Rs.26 lakhs for supplying steel materials, the petitioner has not supplied the goods and cheated the de-facto complainant. It was learnt by the de-facto complainant that the petitioner is not at all dealing with the business of steel plates.