A ELUMALAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Sec. 482, Criminal procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 5899 of 1985 on the file of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.

(2.) THE brief facts are: THE petitioners accused 1 and 2 and the first informant Raghuraman are employed in the Integral Coach Factory, Madras . THEy are friends. During the year 1980, the first petitioner was constructing a house. He was unable to complete the construction, because of want of funds. He approached his friend Raghuraman to oblige him by an accommodation of Rs. 28,000 for the construction of the house. Raghuraman immediately obliged his friend by giving him a loan of Rs. 28,000 out of the sale proceeds of the plot he owned in aminjikarai. It appears that the first petitioner also took a loan of Rs. 10,000 from the factory for the purchase of the house site. He somehow or other spent that amount and the factory was insisting for the production of the sale deed for the purchase of the house site or for the return of the money. Placed in such a predicament position again, the first petitioner approached his friend raghuraman requesting him to lend a sum of Rs. 10,000. He readily obliged him by giving loan of Rs. 10,000. Utilising the amount the first petitioner purchased the house site and produced the sale deed before the factory and got himself weiggled out of the situation, (ii) Similarly, the second petitioner also ob tained a loan of Rs. 7,500 in the year 1981 from the factory for the purpose of purchasing a house site. He also spent the amount. THE factory in turn issued a notice directing him to produce the sale deed or repay the amount of Rs. 7,500. In such a situation, he also approached Raghuraman for lending his helping hand in obliging him by giving loan of Rs. 7,500. He readily helped him by granting the loan, (iii) Subsequently, both the petitioners were unable to honour their commitments to Raghuraman. But Raghuraman appeared to have complained to the known persons and friends of the petitioners about the treacherous act of not repaying the amount as promised by them earlier. On coming to know of this, the petitioners got aggrieved and told Raghuraman that they would not pay the amount and it was for him to take any action whether against them. Subsequently, Raghuraman filed a complaint before the City Crime Branch Police, madras on 21. 2. 1984. THE same was registered as Crime No. 112 of 1984 under sec. 420, Indian Penal Code. After completing the formalities of the investigation, a report under Sec. 173, Criminal Procedure Code had been laid before Court against the petitioners for an offence under Sec. 420, Indian Penal code appeared to have been committed by them.

(3.) IN view of what has been stated above, I am of the view that this is a case purely of a civil nature and no offence under Sec. 420, indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out against the petitioners. The petition therefore, deserves to be allowed.