LAKSHMI METAL WORKS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have come forward for quashing the case in C.C.No.769 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore for the offences punishable under sections 120(B) and 420 IPC.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A3 and A4 have come forward with this application that the second respondent has given a complaint dated 21.11.2010 against the first and second accused, who are none other than the parents of A4 for the offences punishable under sections 120(B) and 420 IPC and the case has been registered in Crime No.103 of 2012. After investigation, charge sheet has been laid against these petitioners along with A2 on 26.11.2014. A1 was died on 5.1.2013.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered and in the 161 statement of the defacto complainant, nothing has been stated against this petitioner/A4. Even though he is the son of A1 and A2, he has not taken part in the commission of the offence. Further more, he had further stated that in the complaint itself, the petitioner sought for action against A1 and A2 and against the proprietary concern, Lakshmi Metal Works. The investigation agency has concealed this aspect and laid the charge sheet and hence he prayed for quash of charge against A4. He relied upon the judgement reported in 2007 (5) Supreme Court Cases page 103 ­ Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs. Fine Tubes and submitted that the proprietary concern is an individual capacity and the proprietary concern differs from partnership firm, owned by an individual by his position and prayed for quash against the petitioners.