MARIMUTHY, (M/69 YEARS) v. THE STATE REP BY

business between the parties. The mere non payment of amount in the business transaction, in the absence of any material to show that the accused cheated and dishonestly induced the person deceive to deliver any property to a person, offence under Sections 406, 420 of IPC are not attracted. Similarly, alleged threat is only for the purpose of filing FIR, hence the entire FIR has to be quashed.

4. The learned Government advocate (Crl.Side) submits that after receiving all the chemicals, amount has not been paid and the investigation is still pending, thereby vehemently opposed to quash the FIR.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the 1^strespondent and perused the documents placed on record.

6. Since the notice sent to the 2^ndrespondent returned as 'no such addressee' and the notice sent through the learned counsel, who appeared for the defacto complainant before the trial court, was also not been served, this Court on 03.12.2021, directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to take paper

3

publication in any of the vernacular daily widely circulated in Tiruppur district stating the hearing date on 15.12.2021. However, there is no representation for the 2^ndrespondent either in-person or through learned counsel.

7. Normally, this Court will not interfere with the investigation, at the same time, when the complaint arises out of a civil dispute and the entire complaint taken at their face value does not constitute any offence, such prosecution or FIR cannot be permitted to continue, as the same would infringe the right of the parties to face ordeal of the trial. The entire allegation in the FIR indicates that there were business dealings and in the said business dealings, there is a due of money. In the complaint, it is not at all stated that the accused have dishonestly or fraudulently induced to part with the chemicals by the defacto complainant, thereby committed an act of cheating. The entire allegation in the complaint further indicates that the business is running from the year 2006 till the year 2015 and only during such transaction, there was some due, therefore, breach of contract and promise, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not constitute any offence under Section

420 IPC. Further, to attract the offences mentioned in the FIR, there must be intention to cheat and dishonestly induce the person deceived to deliver the property to any person, which is not the case herein.

4

8. Similarly, offence under Sections 406 or 420 IPC will not get attracted, there is no entrustment of the property, whereas supply has been made and there were running account between the parties, such transaction cannot constitute misappropriation to attract offence under Sections 406 or 420 of IPC. The allegation in the FIR, does not show any offence by misappropriation. Even taking it at its face value, except the allegation of mere threat, which is empty in nature, no other serious allegation is made and hence offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 120(b) and 506(i) of IPC also will not be attracted. In such view of the matter, the continuance of prosecution in a pure commercial and civil dispute is accordingly quashed.

In the result, the present criminal original petition is allowed and the Crime No.918 of 2016 on the file of the 1^strespondent is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.12.2021

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order ssd

5

To

1. State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras

6

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

ssd

Crl.O.P.No.28207 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.No.16026 of 2017

7