KETHARIGNANAM Vs. N SASIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the 1st and 3rd in C.C.No.213 of 2007 before the lower court to quash the proceedings pending against them as not sustainable.

(2.) THE material facts submitted by the petitioners in the petition are as follows: THE respondent as complainant had presented a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Karaikal and it was taken on file in C.C.No.213 of 2007 for the alleged offence u/s. 464 and 420 I.P.C as a private complaint. THE respondent as the complainant had averred that he was working as a salesman in one M/s. Ram Kumar Agencies from 2001 onwards and he was said to have entrusted 10 cheque leaves to the 2nd petitioner/A3 as a loyal, sincere and faithful worker and A3 did not settle salary dues and incentives to the respondent/complainant and one of the cheques entrusted by the respondent/complainant was handed over by the 1st and 3rd accused to one Mr.Prabakaran, son of Ramalingam who is also arrayed as 4th accused in the above complaint and it was typed by the 4th accused for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- and the said cheque was dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient" for which A4 preferred a complaint u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal and therefore the petitioners namely A1 and A3 have committed the offences u/s. 464 and 420 I.P.C.

(3.) THE respondent had also filed a complaint before the Labour Officer against the 1st petitioner and he did not mention the name of the 2nd petitioner/A3 as the owner of Ram Kumar Agency. Having filed a complaint before the labour court and a complaint against him u/s. 138 of N.I.Act is pending before him, the present complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner and two others is a false one and it was given in order to escape from the clutches of the criminal proceedings pending against him filed by the accused A4. THE alleged offence u/s. 464 I.P.C is not at all made out against the petitioners as they never created any document against the respondent herein. THE respondent has also not produced any material to prove the offence u/s. 420 I.P.C. THE complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is an abuse of process of law and it has been filed by the respondent for only to harass the petitioners.