S N VENKATAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR.R.Shanmugasundram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who has been arrayed as A2 in this case has came forward with this petition seeking the relief of quashing the FIR registered implicating the petitioner as well as another accused namely A1 for the alleged offence under section 408, 420, 465, 468, 471, r/w 468 and 34 and 109 of IPC.

(2.) THE learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being the Branch Manager of the bank, viz., Bank of India, Kodambakkam Branch, Chennai, has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged offence in the complaint. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact the credit, loan and Overdraft facilities availed only by the petrol bunk owned by second respondent as the proprietor of the said petrol bunk. That being the position, the petrol bunk has absolutely no grievance against the petitioner who is the Branch Manager. THE learned senior counsel has further pointed out that the statement of accounts and other related books of accounts relating to the transaction between the bank and petrol bunk make it very clear that the entire overdraft facility was availed only by the petrol bunk and having enjoyed the benefits from the bank the petrol bunk owner cannot have any grievance at all against the petitioner who is only the branch manager of the bank. THE learned senior counsel also contended that the petrol bunk owner namely second respondent has come forwarded with false and frivolous complaint subjecting the petitioner with unnecessary and unwanted ordeal of facing the proceedings initiated by the petrol bunk owner. THE learned senior counsel contended that in view of the above said position allowing the proceedings to continue on the basis of the complaint given by second respondent would amounts to abuse the process of Court and as such the complaint is liable to be quashed. It is also further pointed out by the learned senior counsel that the complaint is pending for investigation for the last more than six months and till date, the petitioner understands that the investigating agency has not collected any material implicating the petitioner herein.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.V.Balu, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent who is the owner of the petrol bunk, viz., Sri Krishna Service Station contended that second respondent has come forward with definite allegations levelled against the petitioner who has been arrayed as A2 as well as against the first accused who was working under him as manager of the petrol bunk. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for second respondent that there are specific allegations of forgery made against both the accused as it is specifically alleged in the complaint that the signature of second respondent was forged by A1 with the connivance of A2.