CHANDRAMOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.19 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent.

(2.) The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that the second accused contacted through online the defacto complainant and represented that she is doing 3M Mask 8210 business and requested the defacto complainant to approach her if said masks are required. Hence, the defacto complainant contacted her for masks and she in turn introduced first accused. The defacto complainant and the first accused entered into the agreement for purchasing two lakhs masks on 6/6/2020. The rates of masks are fixed as 5.25 crores and 50% advance money is to be paid. Accordingly, the defacto complainant paid Rs.2,62,50,000.00 to the account of the first accused firm on 6/6/2020. Since no masks came after four days as promised, the defacto complainant contacted the first accused, he informed that he deposited the amount with the third accused, since he is going to get masks from Netherlands. The petitioner also said that the masks would come within one week. In the meantime, the first accused gave SGS certificate. When the defacto complainant tested the same, he found that the said certificate is fraudulent one. When the defacto complainant demanded money from the first accused, he gave cheque, which was dishonoured. On the complaint given by the second respondent, a case in Crime No.19 of 2020 has been registered against the petitioner and other accused by the first respondent for the offences under Ss. 120(b), 406, 409, 420, 467 and 474 of I.P.C.

(3.) Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Medical Practitioner running hospital in the name and style of 'Sri Kaligambal Hospital' in Vadipatti. He offered application for purchasing 3M 8210 N95 masks from 3M Netherland B.V.Company. One Patrick Van Dick contacted the petitioner and agreed to sell 5 lakhs pieces of masks. The Manager of the said company-Peter Booths had sent proforma invoices with payment terms. On believing the said proforma, the petitioner paid 20% advance of 1,60,000 US Dollar for five lakhs pieces of masks through his bank account on various dates. On receipt of the same, the company had sent Airway Bill and SGS report and requested another 30% of the money. When the petitioner tested the SGS certificate, he came to understand that it is a fraudulent one. Therefore, the petitioner demanded return of money.