V. HARIHARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.3949 of 2024, dtd. 1/10/2024, on the file of the the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, dismissing the petition filed under Sec. 175(3) of BNSS.

(2.) The case of the petitioner/Manager of Desiganathar Textiles Private Limited, Dindigul is that the respondents 2 and 3 approached the petitioner's company in May 2024 to supply raw materials to produce Yarn as they are involved in providing raw materials from Adithya Birla Groups; that the petitioner's company believing the words of the respondents 2 and 3 and the reputation of Adithya Birla Groups has accepted the proposal; that the respondents 2 and 3 had issued a pre-invoice copy on 3/6/2024 to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.23,67,750.00; that the petitioner company had transferred the said amount from their HDFC Bank account to the Bank account of the accused persons at Koodal Nagar Branch on 6/6/2024; that the said transferred amount was withdrawn by the respondents 2 and 3 on 10/6/2024 and they made a promise that the consignment will reach the petitioner's company between 16/6/2024 and 18/6/2024; that since the consignment did not reach the petitioner's company, they contacted the respondents 2 and 3 and at that time, they demanded further sum of Rs.13,00,000.00 as the shipment would be possible only if an order is being placed for entire container; that the petitioner's company paid the demanded amount of Rs.13,00,000.00 on 18/7/2024 based on the second pre-invoice, dtd. 11/7/2024; that since there was no response, subsequently, the petitioner had visited the respondents 2 and 3 on 30/7/2024 along with his employee Meyyappan; that since both were threatened, they have come back; that the petitioner again visited them on 13/8/2024 along with their company share holder Usha Rani and at that time also both were threatened that they would kill both of them if they visited again and seek return of money or goods; that the petitioner was forced to lodge a complaint to the first respondent on 13/8/2024, but the respondents 2 and 3 have influenced the police officials and that therefore, with no other option, the petitioner was constrained to file an application under Sec. 175(3) of BNSS before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate without considering the factual aspects in proper perspective and by observing that it is a civil dispute, dismissed the petition and that therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the present revision.