IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.2977 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 1.Abrar Ahmed 2.Abdul Razack ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 -Vs- 1.State represented by Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Team III, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 2.Rajeev Malhotra ... Respondents/Complainant/ Defacto complainant Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in the F.I.R in Crime No.501 of 2005 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-III, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Raghunathan Senior counsel for M/s.T.I.Ramanathan For Respondent 1 : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Respondent 2 : No appearance ***** O R D E R The petitioners who are accused 1 and 2 seek to quash FIR in Crime No.501 of 2005 on the file of the 1st respondent for alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 471, 468 r/w. 120(b) IPC. 2.The petitioner 1 and 2 are father and son. The 1st petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.Tropical Exports and is dealing in the business of purchase and sale of unclaimed and uncleared goods. Twenty sets of windmills of 20 KW capacity had remained uncleared with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the customs authority since 1996 and in an auction conducted on 20.12.2003 for sale thereof, A1 purchased the same. He had paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as advance. The auction has been conducted by the custodian (M/s.Sanco Trans Ltd.) and the balance was payable after the Commissioner of Customs confirmed the same. On receipt of confirmation letter dated 23.12.2003, A1 approached various parties towards effecting sale of the windmills as the items were huge and were difficult to store in any godown. The 2nd respondent/complainant was one of such persons approached and the letter of communication dated 23.12.2003 issued by the custodian was shown to him. 3. The 2nd respondent/complainant caused inspection of goods by his personnel and quoted Rs.1,60,00,000/- as sale price and on further negotiation, the consideration was arrived at Rs.1,30,25,000/- on 22.03.2004. Under letter dated 06.04.2004, the 2nd respondent/ complainant accepted the offer and issued a post dated cheque dated 08.04.2004 for Rs.25,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent/complainant addressed another letter dated 10.04.2004 referring to the offer of A1 for sale of windmills at a price of Rs.1,30,25,000/- and to the advance of Rs.25,00,000/- paid by him. Along with such letter the 2nd respondent/ complainant enclosed two cheques dated 12.04.2004 and 28.04.2004 respectively for sums of Rs.83,00,000/- and Rs.23,55,250/-. The cheque of Rs.83,00,000/- was duly honoured on presentation. The other cheque was returned for the reason 'payment stopped'. The 1st petitioner caused a legal notice on 03.05.2004 informing of possible action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On receipt of such notice, the 2nd respondent/complainant entered into further negotiation with the 1st accused, as a result of which the same price was reduced by Rs.20,00,000/-. In keeping with such new agreement, the 2nd respondent/complainant issued two letters dated 06.05.2004, informing under one that the previous offer has been superceded and accepting the revised offer and under the other effecting payment of a sum of Rs.3,35,250/- towards final settlement. 4.After a string of transactions between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent/complainant, the 2nd respondent/complainant has preferred a complaint on 03.05.2005 with the 1st respondent alleging that he was made to believe that the company of the 1st accused has purchased the windmill consignment for Rs.1,25,00,000/- at the customs auction and that he was shown a photocopy of the intimation letter from the custodian. He was led to believe that if he invested a sum of Rs.1,31,55,250/-, he would obtain substantial gains. The accused undertook responsibility to ensure sale of the equipment and impressed upon him the urgency to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards purchase price payable under the auction conducted. It also was impressed upon him that if the balance sum was not paid, the advance amounts paid by the 1st petitioner would be forfeited. The 2nd respondent/complaintant further informed the details of payments effected by him and that the goods were delivered to him and an invoice was raised by the concern of the 1st petitioner on 12.04.2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for Rs.1,31,55,250/-. The 2nd respondent/ complainant further has stated that having a suspicion over the purchase amount payable by the 1st accused, he had stopped payment of a cheque of Rs.23,55,250/- and that the price was then reduced to Rs.1,11,30,250/-. 5.The explanation offered for delay in filing the complaint was that the accused has assured to repay all the amounts paid together with interest, if the 2nd respondent/complaint did not initiate any action against him. On such complaint, Crime No.501 of 2005 has been registered for offences under Sections 420, 465, 471, 468 r/w. 120(B) IPC. 6.I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The 2nd respondent/complainant has been served and has chosen not to appear before this Court. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has produced a document of Indian Customs EDI System – Exports (ICES/E), Chennai Custom House (Sea Cargo), Chennai which reflects the position that the 2nd respondent has effected sale of machineries to various purchasers abroad. That could well be the reason why the 2nd respondent/complainant is not before this Court. 7.The very complaint makes abundantly clear that what is in issue is a matter strictly relating to the realm of contracts. When the 2nd respondent/ complainant himself informs that he had stopped payment of a cheque and thereafter, the consideration payable by him to the 1st accused was reduced from Rs.1,31,55,250/- to Rs.1,11,30,250/-, this Court fails to see how any criminal conduct could be alleged. A reading of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/complainant shows that allegations have been made merely to make out commission of offence. Though, it is in a rare case that this Court would exercise its inherent power towards quash of FIR, this Court would do the same, given the peculiar facts of this case and for reasons above stated. 8.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition shall stand allowed. The proceedings in F.I.R in Crime No.501 of 2005 on the file of the 1st respondent shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team III, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No.2977 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 +1 C.C. to Mr.T.I.Ramanathan, Advocate – SR No.23007 BKY[CO] KS 20/04/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/