LIYAKATH ALI RAHMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A private complaint has been preferred before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salem and the same was entertained under Section 200 Cr. P. C. for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I. P. C. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the respondent Police under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. for investigation.

(2.) IT is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs for building a house at Hasthampatti, Salem District during July 2003 to November, 2003. Though it was promised that the entire amount would be repaid within a period of 6 months, inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant, the petitioner/accused refused to repay the same and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. In such circumstance, the private complaint has been preferred before the learned Magistrate.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan transaction took place in Malaysia at the time when the petitioner/accused was working with the complainant. Though it has been alleged that the accused threatened the complainant, no particulars regarding the date and time has been mentioned at paragraph 5 of the complaint. A perusal of the allegations made in the complaint would show that the transaction is purely of civil nature. According to the learned counsel, admittedly, payment of loan has been made only in Malaysia. In such circumstance, cause of action had arisen at Malaysia and the present complaint, which has been preferred before the learned Magistrate, Salem, cannot be sustained and therefore, seeks quashing of the First Information Report and the proceedings pending before the respondent Police.