T KALYANARAMAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CRIME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the accused to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.782 of 2004 pending on the file of the first respondent.

(2.) When this matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent has submitted that the second respondent died on 20.05.2015 and he also produced a copy of the death certificate and hence, after hearing arguments of M/s.HAQ Law Office, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Shanmugarajeswaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for R1, the order is being passed.

(3.) The respondent herein had filed a private complaint stating that the petitioner herein was doing contract work for ISRO at Sriharikota. The petitioner herein requested the second respondent to work for the petitioner by supplying labour and machinery as agent for the works allotted by the ISRO to the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the second respondent had deployed machineries and labourers for the above work at ISRO, Sriharikota and completed the works. The petitioner herein had to pay a sum of Rs. 13,60,000/- for the service provided by the second respondent. The petitioner had collected the entire dues from ISRO for the above contract. However, he paid only a sum of Rs. 8,48,000/- and there is a balance of Rs. 5,12,000/-. In order to discharge a part of the said liability, the petitioner had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 4,05,000/-. The second respondent had presented the said cheque in the bank for encashment, but the said cheque was returned as 'payment stopped'. That being so, on 15.02.2004, when the second respondent was at No.592, Park Road, Annanagar West Extn., Chennai-101, the petitioner herein along with some rowdy elements came there and threatened that if he proceeded any legal action, they would kill him and also assaulted him. Hence, the second respondent had lodged a complaint before the V-5, Thirumangalam police station, but the said complaint was not taken on file. Even after repeated demands, the petitioner evaded to return back the amount which he had wrongfully gained from the second respondent with an intention to cheat him. Hence, the second respondent had filed a private complaint before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, with a request to forward the same to the first respondent under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to register a case and investigate the matter. Accordingly, the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate had forwarded the said complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to the first respondent to register a case and investigate the matter. In pursuance of the said order, the first respondent had registered the case on 27.04.2004 in Crime No.782 of 2004 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B I.P.C.,