IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.10339 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 K.Kasi Viswanathan ...Petitioner/ Accused No.2 -Vs- 1.State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, Egmore. Crime No.624 of 2004 2.S.Veeramani ...Respondents/ Defacto Complainant Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.1025 of 2007 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Gopinath Senior counsel For Respondent 1 : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Respondent 2 : No appearance O R D E R The petitioner who is the 2nd accused in case pending in C.C.No.1025 of 2007 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai has come forward with this petition to quash the proceedings as against him. 2.The said case arises on a complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai alleging that on the basis of false representations made by the petitioner herein and another, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant had parted with goods worth about Rs.82,55,558.20 and suffered loss. Offences under Sections 406 and 420 r/w.34 IPC were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ alleged against the petitioner and the other accused. On the learned Magistrate referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the case in Crime No.624 of 2004 was registered by the 1st respondent on 29.11.2004 and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w.34 against the petitioner and one another. 3.Even, on a reading of the complaint, it is apparent that the petitioner stood in the capacity of guarantor for the transactions between the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and the other accused. A muchilika dated 24.01.2005 entered into between the petitioner, the 2nd respondent and another informs clearly that the petitioner herein was not guilty of any wrong and had not conducted himself in any improper manner whatsoever. The 2nd respondent stands served in the matter but has neither entered appearance nor caused appearance on his behalf. 4.Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner informs that the very complaint would show the role of the petitioner as being a mere go between, between the 1st accused in the case and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. When such was the position and that the petitioner was not guilty of any wrong doing whatsoever is evidenced by the muchilika produced, the petitioner should not be put to undue harassment of facing the trial. 5.I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. 6.As there is no appearance for the 2nd respondent, the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner stand uncontroverted. 7.In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to accept the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition shall stand allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.1025 of 2007 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai shall stand quashed as against the petitioner. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. gm https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. do the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-8. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.A.Kumaraguru, Advocate, Sr. 20086 Crl.O.P.No.10339 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 AKR (CO) kk 5/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/