PUSHPAK AKARWAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above Criminal Original Petitions have been filed' in one and the same case in Crime No. 12 pf 2003 registered by the respondent. Crl. O.P. No. 17225 of 2003 is filed by the accused Nos. 5 and 6 and Crl. O.P. No. 1727 I of 2003 is filed by the 7th accused in the said case, both seeking to call for the records of the case in Crime No. 12 of the 2003 on the file of the respondent and quash the complaint.

(2.) The allegations are such as that the petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 17225 of 2003 are dealing in yarn respectively under the name and style of M/s. Arvind Cotton and M/s. Swastik Yarn Agency in Kolapur District, Maharashtra; that one D. Krishnan, owner and representative of Shri Textiles and S.P. Trading Company of Coimbatore appears to have filed a complaint against the petitioners in both the above Crl. O.Ps. for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, alleging cheating by way of dishonour of cheques, criminal breach of trust, criminal misappropriation, cheating and fraud and the matter is under investigation.

(3.) The further case of the petitioners is that they used to issue post-dated cheques, as security in advance and on receipt of the same, the de facto complainant would supply Yarn to the petitioners and deliver them when the money is realised; that these cheques would be with the de facto complainant; that in sipte of there being no arrears on the part of the petitioners towards payment for textile items, the cheques obtained from the petitioners have been illegally and without any consideration retained by the de facto complainant, who has transformed the said cheques to the third party concerned and sent the same for encashment; that the de facto complainant issued notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, threatening the petitioners for imprisonment and though the de facto complainant knew that those cheques were without consideration and in spite of having received the amount in hand, the cheques have been unreasonably sent for collection and after having been returned as "insufficiency of funds", the de facto complainant threatened the petitioners with dire consequences as in the manner aforementioned and in fact, since the complaint had been lodged before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Coimbatore for the aforementioned offences, the petitioners would ultimately pray to quash the case registered in Crime No. 12 of 2003 on the file of the respondent.