CHELLAPPA & CO Vs. J.MARIYA AMALRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Private complaint in C.C.No.29 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, pending against the petitioners/accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC.

(2.) The brief facts in the private complaint: The 1 st accused/1st petitioner is the partnership Firm and the petitioners 2 to 6 are respectively the partners of the 1st petitioner Firm. The respondent/complainant is a wholesale dealer engaged in the business of Timber in the name of Amal Timbers. The 1st petitioner Firm is dealing with timber business in the name of "?Chellappa and Co "?, and the petitioners 2 to 6 are partners jointly and individually responsible for the administration of the 1 st petitioner firm. The 1st petitioner Firm had been purchasing timber for the past 6 years on credit and remitting the amounts through bank transactions. The business had been run on oral agreement that the amounts would be pay within 60 to 90 days and that the respondent had been believing them supplying timber on credit. From in the year 2013, the petitioner had been purchasing and remitting the amounts through cheques, while so on 26.11.2014 the respondent had supplied 8 logs of imported Vengai Timber measuring 763.02 sq.ft. The value was fixed at Rs.1305.96/- with tax at 14.5% and the total value was Rs.11,41,000/-. Towards the liability the petitioners had issued six post dated account payee cheques drawn on State Bank of India, Theni, SME Branch on 22.11.2014. While so, out of the outstanding amounts of Rs.11,41,000/-, the petitioners had cleared one cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- and did not pay the balance amount. When the respondent had in person and through phone contacted the petitioner for payment they had been whiling away time. The respondent had contacted petitioners 5 and 6 for payment and that they had threatened the respondent over phone saying that if he asks for money they will do away with him. While so, on 12.10.2017 at 12.30 p.m., the respondent along with his assistant had gone to the shop of the respondents seeking payment and at the time petitioners 5 and 6 have threatened him and abused him with filthy language. On 12.10.2017, the respondent had given a complaint to Theni District Crime Branch and the respondent were called for enquiry on 21.10.2017 and 25.10.2017 and since no further action was taken, the respondent sent a complaint by registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Theni District and since no action had been taken by them, the present private complaint had been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Private complaint pending in C.C.No.29 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, is nothing but an abuse of process of law. He would further submit that a case of commercial transaction had been projected as a case of cheating and criminal breach of trust and thereby an attempt has been made by the respondent /complainant to circumvent the due process of law and resorted to a short cut way of recovering the amounts in a business transaction by projecting this case as a case of criminal nature. He would further submit that the entire reading of the complaint would show that the necessary ingredients for cheating and criminal breach of trust has not been made out against the accused. By making a false averment that the petitioners 5 and 6 are threatened and abused the respondent/complainant with filthy language, the women folk in the family who are nominal partners have also been dragged into the criminal complaint. Admittedly, even as per the complaint, the petitioner firm and the respondent were having business transactions for several years and that there was a running transactions between them. He would further submit that along with the complaint, the respondent had filed 16 Documents, the Document No.1 is a Credit Bill bearing invoice No. 197, dated 26.11.2014, issued by the respondent for Rs. 11,41,000/-. It had been stated that interest @ 24% per annum will be charged if the bill is not paid on presentation Goods once sold will not be taken back. Further Document Nos.8, 9 and 10 are respectively the Reports of the respondents Auditor showing the Ledger Accounts of the respondent with the petitioner firm for the periods (2013 -2014), (2014-2015) and (2015-2016). This would show that the business transaction was a running transaction from 01.04.2013 and several purchases have been made and payments have also been made to the respondent/complainant. Further as per the Statement an amount of Rs.7,25,000/- was shown as outstanding.