PARIMALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.62 of 2022, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 420, 294(b), 341, 307 and 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC as against the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant made acquaintance of one Nandhini through his friend Palanivelu wherein the said Nandhini introduced herself that she owns a restaurant namely Express Foods as Nandambakkam. While so, the said Nandhini approached the defacto complainant to lend money for the purpose of opening restaurants at Vadapalani and Kodambakkam. Therefore, the defacto complainant had given a sum of Rs.50,00,000.00 to Nandhini, her daughter Vaishali, her son Karan and this petitioner for which, the said Nandhini issued title document and cheques in favour of the defacto complainant. However, the cheques issued by the petitioner and others were dishonoured and the defacto complainant also came to know that the document issued by Nandhini was forged one. When the defacto complainant asked for return of money, the accused persons threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. It is further alleged that on 4/9/2018 around 12.00 pm., when the defacto complainant went to Apollo Pharmachy near Manapakkam, the accused persons harassed the defacto complainant and also tried to attack him with weapons. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged complaint before the first respondent. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.203 of 2018 and after completion of investigation, they filed final reported in P.R.C.No.62 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 420, 294(b), 341, 307 and 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC. To quash the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the present petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as A4. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the respondent filed charge sheet for the offences under Ss. 406, 420, 294(b), 341, 307 and 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC. The only allegation made as against the petitioner is that she issued cheques in order to repay the loan amount in favour of the second respondent. It got dishonored and as such, the second respondent also initiated proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it is pending for trial. Therefore, the offence under Sec. 420 of IPC is not at all made out as against the petitioner. That apart, it is only money transaction between the accused and the second respondent and it cannot be turned into criminal prosecution.