IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.23606 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 and 1 of 2008 Asish Jalan .. Petitioner Versus 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, T-15, SRMC Police Station, Porur, Chennai – 600 116. 2.T.Balachander, Secretary, S &S Power Switch Gear Limited Employees Union, Old No.19/4, New No.292, Round Building, Anna Nagar West Extension, Collector Nagar, Chennai 600 101. .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in Crime No. 819 of 2007, on the file of Inspector of Police, T-15, SRMC Police Station, Porur, Chennai – 600 116 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Chandran, Senior Counsel for Mr. Ilayaraja For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent-2 : Mr. J. Saravanan ORDER The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in Crime No. 819 of 2007, on the file of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Inspector of Police, T-15, SRMC Police Station, Porur, Chennai – 600 116 and quash the same. 2. The prosecution case is that the respondent police received a complaint from the defacto complainant and registered a Criminal case in Crime No.819 of 2007 dated 06.05.2007 on an alleged offence under Sections 465, 468 r/w 471 and 420 of IPC. 3. The ingredients of the complaint is that S & S Power Switch Gear Limited Employees Union, former association office bearers prepared false documents and entered into an agreement with the management and as such cheated the employees of the company and Court. The said company suspended its operation without giving any prior information to employees. Regarding this dispute, the case came before the Industrial Tribunal in case number I.D.No. 4 of 2004 and C.P.No. 380 of 2003. The company had also sent representations to the Government and sought permission to close the company. That was rejected by the Government. Thereafter, it is further alleged that the company conducted meeting in a Star Hotel for Union office bearers and Joint Commissioner, Labour Department. They had then come to a conclusion that the company will pay 55 days salary to the workers as compensation for loss of employment. Further, the company office bearers insisted on some employees to sign in the said compromise. On 20.02.2006, the employees of the company rejected the compromise formula. Further, the company announced that it will be dispersing compensation of 55 days salary by cheque. Only 3 employees received the said compensation. This happened in the presence of the respondent police. 4. Further, there were some disputes between the employees and Union office bearers. Regarding this the employees had approached the City Civil Court. Writ Petition has also been filed before the Honourable Court and the employees obtained stay of the compromise formula. Further, the defacto complainant stated that it was alleged that 154 employees signed in the compromise formula at the time of general body meeting dated 06.11.2005. Actually there was no general body meeting on 06.11.2005. In the alleged signature of 154 employees, 6 employees were working abroad. Their signature also has been found in the compromise formula. As such, the offence was committed. As such, the respondent police registered a case against the accused persons. Further, the register was torn and manipulated. Supporting the prosecution case, 5 documents had been filed. 5. The petitioner/12th accused has contended that because of the settlement, Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2004 and 7 of 2003 was withdrawn by the erstwhile S & S Power Switch Gear Limited Employees Union. The petitioner further submitted that the filing of FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The entire factors in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complaint is without Jurisdiction. Further, the Defacto complainant has no locus standi to lodge the complaint with the respondent police. There is also a suit pending in O.S.No.3904 of 2006 before the City Civil Court, to ascertain whether the defacto complainant is the valid office bearer of the Union. Further, Writ Petition also has been filed against the Settlement. Subsequently, a Writ Appeal has also been filed which is pending on the file of the Honourable Court. Hence the petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings. 6. Considering the contents of the FIR and connected records including this Honourable court direction, the Court is of the view that some irregularities are involved in the said case. To sort out the same and in the interest of Justice to be imparted to the parties concerned, adjudication is necessary. Accordingly, the quash petition in Criminal Original Petition No.23606 of 2007 is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mps/mra To 1. The Inspector of Police, T-15, SRMC Police Station, Porur, Chennai – 600 116. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104. +1cc to Mr.Ilayaraja, Advocate Sr 37198 GG(CO) km/26.8. Crl.O.P.No.23606 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/