RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in Crime No. 18 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, district Crime Branch, Coimbatore and quash the same.

(2.) THE respondent's case is that the respondent Police filed a complaint against the petitioner in Crime No. 18 of 2007 on an alleged offence under sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. The defacto complainant, Mr. Anandkumar, lodged a complaint against the accused/petitioner and others stating that (1)The petitioner (2) Sunil Kumar (3) Zubee John (4) Anil Kumar approached the defacto complainant and requested him to supply garments to the petitioner's garment factory namely Colour Labs Garments. On their request, the defacto complainant supplied Rs. 20 lakhs worth garments to the petitioner's factories. The said materials were delivered after receipt of cheques from the petitioner. The said cheques were not honoured. Then the defacto complainant demanded the money from the petitioner. The petitioner threatened the defacto complainant and sent him back. In this situation, the petitioner loaded the sewing machines and allied equipments in 5 lorries and the same was informed to the respondent police to prevent the same. The respondent Police immediately registered a case against the petitioner and three others in Crime No. 18 of 2007.

(3.) NOW the petitioner/ Accused No. 1 has filed the above Original Petition to quash the Criminal proceedings, on the below mentioned reasons. The defacto complainant has alleged that the company was supplied with materials to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs and the petitioner has not paid the amount is totally false, incorrect and baseless. The allegation is that the cheques were dishonoured and if so the defacto complainant can have other remedies available on various provisions of law. The materials being shifted from factory is not against law but the petitioner and co-accused entered into an agreement between them dated 31. 12. 2006 and 06. 02. 2007. As per agreement, the factory machinery was shifted. There is no evidence to suggest that the material had been borrowed from the defacto complainant and the complainant has not mentioned the exact items of garments. Further, the petitioner does not have any company as alleged, whereas the petitioner also stands as one of the secured creditor who later on secured by way of agreement over the property for his credit and legitimate rights as per the agreement between the petitioner and the said Anilkumar for a sum of rs. 25 lakhs paid by the petitioner to him. The defacto complainant has wrongly mentioned as K. G. Garments and Colour Lab Garments and these are in no way connected with the said company. The cheque issued by the said Anilkumar dated 12. 01. 2007 was in the capacity of proprietor of Colour Lab Garments, which clearly reveals the fact that the petitioner had nothing to do with the affair. Further, the said supply of goods is purely Civil in nature. Hence, the petitioner has approached the Court to quash the proceedings.