IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No. 24826 of 2007 and M.P. 1 of 2007 K. Dharmaraj .. Petitioner Versus 1. State by The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Dharapauram, Erode District. Cr.No. 409 / 2007 2. P. Deivasigamani .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in Cr.No. 409 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Dharapuram, Erode District and quash the same insofar as it relates to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent No.I. : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER The petitioner/Accused has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in Crime No. 409 of 2007 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Dharapuram, Erode District and quash the same. 2. The First Information Report reveals that as per this Honourable Court's direction in Criminal Original Petition No. 16703 of 2007, the respondent Police registered a Criminal Case in Crime No.409 of 2007 dated 26.02.2007 on an alleged offence under Sections 420, 406, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC against the petitioner herein. The defacto complainant, one P.Deivasignamani, narrated in his complaint that the petitioner/accused approached the Defacto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complainant to start a groundnut business with an investment of Rs.35 Lakhs from each of them. Accordingly, the defacto complainant arranged Rs.35 lakhs through his relatives and friends. The said amount was paid on 01.06.2003 to the accused person. As per the terms and conditions of business, the accused person should look after the business and at the year end, the profit will be divided equally amongst them. After the completion of one year, the defacto complainant urged the accused person to place the accounts, but the accused person wantonly delayed to submit the accounts relating to the said transactions. The same was informed to one Murugasamy Gounder, a common friend of them. The common friend arbitrated and in the said arbitration, it was decided that the accused person will return the money to the defacto complainant within three months. Thereafter, the defacto complainant had continuously approached the accused person, but the accused person and his supporters threatened the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent police. The respondent police did not take any action on the said complaint. Hence, the defacto complainant approached this Honourable Court and got direction to the respondent police. As per this Honourable Court order, the respondent registered a case against the accused person/petitioner herein. 3. The petitioner/accused has challenged the FIR on the ground that on the same facts, the defacto complainant filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem. The learned Judicial Magistrate directed the Steel Plant Police Station to investigate the matter and in turn, the said police registered a case in Crime No. 314 of 2005 against the petitioner and three others for the alleged offence under Sections 420 r/w 34, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. Thereafter, the steel plant police investigated the matter and referred the matter as "mistake of facts" and the same was reported to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem. In such a situation, another complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant. The petitioner has further alleged that on the same said transaction, parallel complaints had been lodged against the petitioner. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and contents of the FIR, and contentions of the petitioner and arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, the Court is of the view that the receipt has been issued by the petitioner to the defacto complainant for the said amount of Rs.35Lakhs. This is a vitally important document of the said case. Another complaint in Crime No. 314 of 2005 has been registered by another Police Station. In the said Criminal case, there are four accused persons, but in the present Crime No.409 of 2007, the petitioner alone is the accused person. Hence, the FIR cannot be quashed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Therefore the Criminal Original Petition No.24826 of 2007 is dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. mps/mra Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Dharapauram, Erode District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104. + 1 cc to Mr.C. Prakasam, Advocate SR.42736 Crl.O.P.No. 24826 of 2007 and M.P. 1 of 2007 KG(CO) EU 4.11.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/