IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8-02-2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P.No.11473 of 2006 and M.P.NO.3031 of 2006 1.A. Ravindra 2.A. Manikumar 3.A. Krishna @ Krishnaiah .. Petitioner Versus State rep by The Inspector of Police (Team I) Central Crime Branch Egmore, Chennai 8. (X Crime No. 237 of 2005) .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the entire records of charge sheet i C.C.No.10353/2005 on the file of the learned III M.M., G.T., Chennai and quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners. For Petitioners : Mr.A.K. Vijayakumar For Respondent : Mr.M. Babu Muthu Meeran APP ORDER Among 4 accused, the petitioners are A.1 to A.3. It is the case of the prosecution that from 4.10.2004 to 1.1.2005, the petitioners are alleged to have introduced A.4 to the complainant for purchase of rice on credit basis on the promise that A.4 may give more business to the complainant. Believing the same, it is alleged that the complainant delivered rice to the value of Rs.20,66,666/- and after purchase of the same from the complainant, the petitioners, in collusion and conspiracy, with A.4, alleged to have sold the same for lesser value in the open market and thereby failed to pay the amount to the complainant and thereby caused loss to the complainant and obtained unlawful gain. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the case of the prosecution, as per the first information report, that the petitioner introduced A.4 to the complainant, but the fact remains that the petitioners are brothers and A.4 is the sister's son of the petitioners. He also submits that A.4 was already having business transaction with the complainant even prior to 4.10.2004 and under such circumstances, introduction of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A.4 by the petitioners to the complainant may not arise at all. The learned counsel relied on certain invoices filed in the typed set to substantiate the same and also submits that the complainant herself purchased rice from the petitioners and issued cheque and subsequently, when the cheque got bounced, proceedings were initiated against the complainant and all these factors have been suppressed in the case of the prosecution and a false case has been foisted. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are abundant materials collected during the course of investigation. Several witnesses have been examined to substantiate that the petitioners along with A4 sold the rice purchased from the complainant for lesser value. A.4 is none other than the sister's son of the petitioners. The relationship between the accused as well as the wealth of the materials collected during the course of investigation, prima-facie, substantiates the allegations put forth by the prosecution. He further submits that after filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and also framed charges and the accused have also been questioned and the case is posted for trial. In such circumstances, the argument put forth by the petitioners cannot be appreciated. 4. I have perused the materials available on record. Concededly, A.4 is the sister's son of the petitioners. The documents relied on by the petitioners in the typed set are not prosecution documents and those documents are disputed by the prosecution. If certain materials are disputed, the same have to be agitated during the course of trial. On perusal of the other materials, collected during the course of investigation, it appears that prima-facie case is made out and the learned Magistrate, on appreciation of such materials, framed charges and the case is posted for trial and under such circumstances, the final report filed by the investigating agency cannot be questioned. The points agitated by the petitioners may have to be tested only during the course of trial. 5. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. Hence the petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. Since the case is pending from 2006, the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case on priority basis in accordance with law. Sr Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The III Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T., Chennai 2. Thro' The chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. 3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Egmore, Chennai 8 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai Crl.O.P.No.11473 of 2006 GG(CO) SR/20.2.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/