C. SIVASANKARAN AND 9 OTHERS Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, TEAM XVI, THOUSAND LIGHTS, CHENNAI-600 006 AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN as much as the points raised and issue involved in all these three matters are inter -related in the same case, a common order is passed hereunder. Crl.O.P. No. 21443 of 2006 is filed to quash the charge sheet taken on file by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 191 of 2006. Crl.R.C. No. 935 of 2006 has been filed by the Petitioners to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate, permitting the first Respondent to take further investigation. Crl.R.C. No. 936 of 2006 has been filed by the Petitioners to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate, in a petition filed by the Petitioner to recall the Non Bailable Warrant.

(2.) THE Petitioners herein, are arrayed as A -1 to A -10 for the offences punishable under Sections 409 r/w 109 and 120 -B IPC, before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, in C.C. No. 191 of 2006. Originally, the complaint has been taken on file on the strength of the complaint given by the second Respondent, the de facto complainant. The first Respondent, after receiving the complaint through the Commissioner of Police, initially registered a case for offence under Section 467, 468, 471, 472, 420 and 120B IPC on 17.06.2006.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that the second Respondent/ de facto complainant has entered into a joint venture, business transaction and by the way, he is one of the party among 18 persons to develop a larger extent of land. Even at the time of lodging the first information report, the same has been done with several incorrect particulars and the dispute is purely of civil in nature. The complaint has been lodged relying on the incorrect information received by the de facto complainant from the Home Ministry of Government of India and subsequently, it has been clarified by the same authority to the effect that as on the date of registration of sale, the first Petitioner was very well available in India. A -5 to A -10 were employees of A -2 and only in order to coerce and humiliate them, they have been implicated as accused in the case. Final report of the case has been filed on 02.08.2006 and even prior to that on 31.07.2006 a letter of withdrawal of the complaint has been given by the de facto complainant and without considering the same, the final report has been filed. If such a letter of withdrawal is taken into account by the first Respondent, final report would not have been filed.