JAYAVEL NAICKER Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANGALAMEDU POLICE STATION PERAMBALUR TALUK TRICHI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner 2nd accused under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.900 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this application are as follows:

(3.) IN support of the above contention the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.Balasubramaniam placed reliance on the decision of out High Court reported in P.P.Alikoya Proprietor Noble Lemon Company v. P. Murugan Proprietor Kalaimagal Vegetable Commission Mundy New Market, Subramaniapuram, Palani P.O., 1994 T.N.L.J:340, The 1st accused in this case by one Sebastian is a resident of Krishnapuram village within the jurisdiction of Thambampatti police and the petitioner/ A -2 by name Jayavel Naicker is a resident of Attur within the jurisdiction of Attur P.S. and the complainant by name Govindan is a resident of Perambalur village. Thus these three persons are residing in different places and in different villages. While so the complainant would state in the complaint given to the Magistrate that he purchased the tapioca roots from the persons mentioned in the complaint between 7.12.1994 to 14.12.1994 about 5 loads and sent the same to the mill of the petitioner/A -2 at Attur and both the accused viz., Sebastian and the petitioner/A -2 Jayavel Naicker promised to pay the price of tapioca at Perambalur village, and when the complainant asked them to pay the money, they promised to pay the same, and he believed their words and kept quiet for time, and the thereafter against both the accused came to the complainant on 25.7.1995 and asked the complainant to supply further load of tapioca, and when the complainant demanded the payment of tapioca supplied earlier, they denied the same and stated that he did not supply tapioca and not liable to pay any amount, and when questioned further by the complainant as how they can cheat him and they replied to collect the same if that is so, and against the complainant went to the accused 1 and 2 on 30.8 1995 and demanded to pay the cost of the tapioca supplied earlier and they were evading the payment for the same.