V. KRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed to quash an FIR in Crime No.9 of 2020 registered for the offences under Ss. 409, 506 (i) I.P.C.

(2.) It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners are known to the second respondent/de-facto complainant; that the first petitioner entered into a lease with the second respondent on 19/2/2012 in respect of the land and building belonging to the second respondent herein; that the petitioners promised to deliver the property in "as is where is" condition after the expiry of the lease period; that the lease was originally granted for a period of six years from 19/2/2012; that on the expiry of lease period, the second respondent/de-facto complainant found that the petitioners had damaged the building and other electrical equipments; that when the defacto complainant asked the petitioners to rectify the same, they had promised to repair and rectify the damages to the building and the electrical equipments; that based on the said representation, the defacto complainant/second respondent renewed the lease for the further period of the eleven months from 25/7/2018; that from 1/5/2019, the petitioners did not pay rent to the premises; that when the second respondent met them on 25/5/2019 the petitioners promised to vacate the premises and promised to hand over the premises in the same condition as it was when handed over to them; that on 5/11/2019 the respondent inspected the premises and found that the electrical panels, cable wires, expensive switches and bulbs to the value of Rs.30,00,000.00 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) were missing; that the petitioners had damaged the premises and the estimated loss on account of the said damages worked out to Rs.60,00,000.00 (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Only); that the petitioners promised to rectify all the defects and they did not do so; that on 20/3/2020, the second respondent met the first and second petitioners/A1 and A2 again and asked as to when they would rectify the same, the first and second petitioners had abused them in filthy language; that they stated they can talk only through the third petitioner, who had introduced the petitioners to the second respondent. The aforesaid complaint was lodged on 8/6/2020 and the First Information Report was registered on 24/8/2020.

(3.) Mr.K.P.Ananthakrishna, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that:-