M.RANJITHKUMAR Vs. ANNAKODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.No.77 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti, having taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner is a practising advocate and doing part- time journalist for the past many years. Initially, a complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant with regard to the dispute of borrowal of money. The other accused persons are the family members of the first accused. After the said complaint, there was a settlement between the petitioners as well as the defacto complainant and recording the same, the said complaint was closed on 06.03.2018. However, unfortunately, on the very same complaint, the second respondent issued CSR No.35 of 2018 dated 19.03.2018 and the same has been registered as FIR in crime No.120 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 294(b) of I.P.C, and without considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the 2 nd respondent conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet, which was taken on file in C.C.No.77 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC would not even attract as against the petitioners, since the 3rd petitioner borrowed the money from the defacto complainant and on the basis of the communication dated 04.03.2018, they have arrived at a compromise between then and hence, absolutely, there is no allegation about job rocketing as alleged in the charge sheet as against the petitioners. Now, the defacto complainant came with a new set of allegation and it was registered and accordingly, charge sheet has been filed as against the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the charge sheet.