IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:03.07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.24246 of 2007 S. Buddhan .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Commisioner of Police Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai – 8. 2. The Inspector of Police, P2 Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying to direct the respondents herein particularly the second respondent herein to trace out the whereabouts of A.Murali, proprietor of M/s. Bharathi Enterprises, Chennai-94 for recovery of the amount from him or in the alternative direct the second respondent herein to advise M/s.Margadharsi Chits Pvt. Ltd, not to give troubles to the petitioner herein in future for recovery of the alleged amount due from him. For Petitioner : M/s. K.Venkatesn (No appearance) For Respondents : Mr. R.Muniappa raj Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R The counsel for the petitioner stated in the petitioner that one M/s.Margadharsi Chits Pvt. Ltd at No.602, Anna Salai, Chennai have filed a case against one Bharathi Enterprises, represented by its proprietor Murali and 5 others including the petitioner herein, who has been arrayed as third respondent in the said case before the learned Appellate Authority (Chit Funds Act) and Special Secretary, Chennai, and the same was taken on file in No.16945/G/2007 and it is pending. 2. The petitioner's counsel further stated in the above petition that the petitioner is a guarantor for the said M/s. Bharathi Enterprises, for the chit amount of Rs.7,85,030/-. The said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount was so far not repaid by the said M/s.Bharathi Enterprises. Hence, M/s.Margadharsi Chits Pvt. Ltd directly and indirectly giving trouble to the petitioner/guarantor. 3. As alleged by the petitioner, the successful bidder namely the proprietor of M/s.Bharathi Enterprises could not be traced out so far by M/s.Margadharsi Chits Pvt. Ltd. So the M/s.Margadharsi Chits Pvt. Ltd is continuously giving trouble to the petitioner herein for recovery of the alleged amount due from him. As per Tribunal Order the the petitioner is liable to pay the said amount jointly and severally to the M/s.Margadharsi Chits Pvt. Ltd. As such now the petitioner is available and hence the said M/s.Margadharsi Chits Pvt. Ltd approached him continuously and troubling him to collect the amount. The said highest bidder M/s. Bharathi Enterprises would not trace out so far. Hence, the petitioner filed the above direction petition for direction to the respondents particularly the second respondent ie., Inspector of Police, Nungambakkam Police Station to trace out the whereabouts of the one Mr.A.Murali, Proprietor of M/s. Bharathi Enterprises, Chennai -94 for recovery of the amount from him. Further the petitioner prays before this Court for further direction to advise M/s.Margadharsi Chits Pvt. Ltd not to give trouble to the petitioner herein in future for recovery of the alleged amount due from him. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents argued the case. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that it is a chit transaction and on the basis of the transaction there is some irregularity and some default committed by the highest bidder and his guarantor. The aggrieved chit fund namely M/s.Margadharsi Chits Pvt. Ltd approached the Arbitrator and filed a case for recovery of the same. The learned Arbitrator issued notice to both the parties. In the Arbitration Proceedings 3rd respondent/petitioner herein participated and resists the case. Further the learned Arbitrator passed the award in favour of M/s.Margadharsi Chits Private Ltd. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent police, (i.e) Inspector of Police, Nungambakkam and further direction to the M/s.Margadharsi Chits Pvt. Ltd not to disturb the petitioner herein for collecting dues from him. The Court cannot give such a kind of direction and protect the petitioner from his liability. The aggrieved party, namely, M/s.Margadharsi Chits Pvt. Ltd has initiated legal proceedings against the petitioner through an appointment of Arbitrator. So, M/s. Margadharsi Chits Pvt. Ltd has initiated the proceedings as per law. Under the circumstances, the court is not inclined to give direction as prayed by the petitioner herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mra To 1. The Commisioner of Police Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai – 8. 2. The Inspector of Police, P2 Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Crl.O.P.No.24246 of 2007 TS(CO) SRA/17/06/2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/