K L KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR easy reference and for the sake of convenience Criminal Original Petition Nos. 392, 410 and 414 of 2003 are herein after referred to as the first, second and the third Criminal Original Petition respectively. From out of all the above three Criminal Original Petitions, the first and second Criminal Original petition above have been filed by the brothers, namely, K.L.Krishnamurthy and K.L.Subramanian and the third Criminal original petition is filed besides these two persons by another K.K.Ramesh Babu, who is the son of the first petitioner in the other Criminal Original Petitions and the respondent in the first Criminal Original petition is State rep. by The Inspector of Police, E.O.W.II, Sivagangai, the respondent in the second Criminal Original petition is State rep. by The Inspector of Police, E.O.W.II, Dindigul and the respondent in the third Criminal Original petition is State rep. by The Inspector of Police, E.O.W.II, Madurai.

(2.) THESE Criminal Original Petitions have been filed generally alleging that on the complaints lodged by one T.S.Kuppusamy respectively dated 27-05-2002, 26-05-2002 and 25-05-2002 concerned respectively in the above first, second and third Criminal Original Petition, three cases have been registered by the respondents, all under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. against the petitioners described above as per the respondents F.I.R.s in its Crime Nos. 1 of 2002, dated 27-05-2002, Crime No. 4 of 2002, dated 26-05-2002 and Crime No. 5 of 2002, dated 25-05-2002 and it is only praying to quash all the above cases registered and investigated into by the respondents, the petitioners have come forward to file all the above Criminal Original petitions, on grounds such as that the complainant T.S.Kuppusamy, has alleged in the first case above that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- dated 5-8-1996 in the petitioners' Finance Company, namely, K.L.Krishnamurthy Finance Company, as a Fixed Deposit for a period of 3 years, promising to pay interest at 24% per annum for the deposit amount, in so far as the second case above is concerned that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 85,000/- and Rs.1,15,000/- respectively dated 23-04-1996 and 24-03-1998 in the petitioners' Finance Company, namely, K.L.Krishnamurthy Finance Company, as a Fixed Deposit for a period of 3 years, promising to pay interest at 24% per annum for deposit amount and in so far as the third case above is concerned that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- dated 16-9-1997 and 20-11-1997 respectively in the petitioners' Finance Company, namely, K.L.Krishnamurthy Finance Company, as a Fixed Deposit for a period of 3 years, promising to pay interest at 24% per annum for the deposit amount; that the accused therein executed the promissory notes in his favour, but evaded the issuance of deposit receipts under some pretext or the other; that on the complaints lodged by the complainant, the respondents have registered the cases in the manner aforementioned under its crime numbers for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. and have taken up the same for investigation. Hence, alleging that the complaint has not been lodged on true facts and circumstances, but on motivated, false and imaginery allegations, thus giving the colour of criminality for the cases which are civil in nature and on such grounds, since according to the petitioners the complaints cannot be maintained before the respondents, particularly under the TNPID Act before the Special Court they have come forward to file all the above three petitions praying for quashing the F.I.Rs in the respective Criminal Original petitions above.

(3.) THERE seems to be nothing wrong on the part of the complainant in the criminal case registered by the respondents to have resorted to lodge the complaints on the failure of the petitioners to repay the sums deposited with them in their Finance Company, which are all admitted facts. But the only plea that is taken on the part of the petitioners is that the subject matters are civil in nature and they cannot lie before the respondents for investigation.