M. VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. A. LEO CHARLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petitioner is the Accused in C.C.No.384 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem and he has come forward with the present petition to quash the proceedings.

(2.) THE respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for the offence under Section 211 of IPC. The averments in the complaint are as follows:-The complainant is the Managing Partner of a company which is engaged in the activity of construction of building and other related works. The accused has assisted the complainant in the arbitration proceedings. While doing so, the accused has given the complainant's address to IRDA authorities and also used the complainant's office and made personal gains. Further, the accused attempted to steal some of the files from the complainant's office. When the complainant informed the accused that he did not require the services of the accused any more, he demanded a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 for his assistance and services done in arbitral proceedings. When the same was refused by the complainant, the accused preferred a complaint against the complainant for alleged theft of a sum of Rs.1,900.00 and a camera worth Rs.4500.00. After enquiry, the Suramangalam police came to a conclusion that the complaint of the accused is false and the police themselves filed a case in C.C.No.168 of 2010 against the accused. Then the accused filed Crl.O.P.No.19968 of 2010 to quash the case in C.C.NO.168 of 2010 and this Court had quashed the proceedings giving liberty to the complainant to institute separate complaint against the accused invoking Section 211 IPC. Hence, the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 211 of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Salem and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.384 of 2011. Against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the complaint filed by the complainant for an offence under Section 211 Cr.P.C is maintainable in law since it makes out a clear case against the petitioner/accused. Further, this Court had given permission to the respondent to file a separate complaint. He also contended that in this case there is no bar under Section 195(1) Cr.P.C and the learned Magistrate is justified in taking cognizance of the offence.