N.MOHAMED FAROOK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.16 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Ss. 406, 420, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of I.P.C read with Sec. 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act as against the petitioners.

(2.) The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that she along with her husband are involved in the supply of Good Night, Gokul Sandal Powder, Medimix Soap, Johnson and Johnson Products, Padmini Agarbathi's and VVD Coconut oil. While being so, they were approached by the accused persons and placed orders to supply products to their shop and they assured that they will settle the bills on a monthly credit basis. Thereby, they induced the second respondent to supply the goods. Believing the said words, the second respondent started supplying goods from the year 2015, however, after some period, the accused failed to settle the bills on a monthly basis and when the second respondent approached the accused persons to settle the amount, they promised that the pending amount will be like a bank deposit and it would be settled soon. They also requested to supply the goods without any interruption on the assurance that they will settle the bill. Accordingly, so far from 22/6/2015 to 22/7/2021, the second respondent supplied goods to the tune of Rs.47,15,828.00. When the second respondent asked for payment on 25/11/2021, the accused persons threatened them with dire consequences and abused them with a filthy words. On receipt of the said complaint, the first registered the F.I.R in Crime No.16 of 2022 for the offences under Ss. 406, 420, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of I.P.C read with Sec. 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act as against the petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been procuring the products and commodities for its store in Koodal Nagar and Vilangudi on a wholesale basis from the second respondent agencies for the past 10 years. They have made timely payments towards the goods supplied by way of cash and cheques. The payments made towards the goods supplied are reflected in the statement of accounts and in the Income Tax returns filed by the first petitioner herein. While being so, the products supplied by the second respondent were of bad quality and as such, the petitioners stopped purchasing the goods from their agencies. Due to which, false complaint has been foisted as against the petitioners. Even assuming that there is any amount payable by the petitioners on the supply of goods, it is completely business transaction and civil in nature. Admittedly, all along the petitioners are paying amounts for the goods supplied by them. If at all any due from the petitioners, it would not amount to attract any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. Further, the alleged occurrence took place on 25/11/2021, whereas the second respondent lodged the complaint only on 8/1/2022. There is no sufficient reasons stated by the second respondent to lodge the belated complaint.