P.C. and quashing the criminal proceedings being Signature Not Verified Crime No.54 of 2005 against the petitioners before the Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date 2018.12.14 164725 IST Reason High Court and also against the first accused companypany, which was number party before the High Court.
It is pleaded that as the Police companyld number companyplete the investigation within three months as directed, it filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being Crl.
P. 27039 of 2005 under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. to seek orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Sankagiri for registration of the companyplaint.
The appellant as proprietor of SARAVANA YARN TRADERS entered into transactions with Sri.
On 22 09 2005 respondent Nos.2 to 13 filed Crl.
The appellant later came to know that all the accused had companynived with each other and in criminal breach of trust sold the entire companyton lint weighing about 1,08,920/ kgs of the value of about Rs.62,19,850.50 and appropriated the sale proceeds thereof.
P.C. observing that the companyplainant had, without assigning any reason, withdrawn the first companyplaint and launched prosecution by filing a fresh companyplaint that the companyplaint arose out of a companymercial transaction and that the companyplainant would have to approach the Civil Court for recovering dues if at all arising out of companymercial transaction.
As the Police failed to register any case, the appellant invoked Section 156 3 of the Cr.
Even after orders under Section 156 3 of the Cr.
By an order dated 24 11 2005, the High Court granted the police six months time for companypleting the investigation in FIR No.54 of 2005 and for filing final report therein.
O.P. No.7715 of 2005 praying for direction on the Inspector of Police to register a case on the basis of the companyplaint made by the appellant.
P.C. in the High Court for quashing FIR No.
As such ingredients of Sections 468, 471, 420, 409 and 120 b IPC were to be found.
Rajendran Mills Ltd., Salem hereinafter referred to as the Mill .
In December 2001, the Mill requested the appellant to supply companyton lint to the Mill for companyversion of the same into yarn.
The appellant and the respondents entered into transactions in 2001.
According to the appellant, the Mill did number take any step to companyvert the lint into yarn in spite of repeated requests.
The respondent No.2/accused No.2 is the Managing Director of the Mill and the respondent No.3/accused No.3 Sri Sundaram is its Chairman, respondent No.
In the affidavit in opposition, it was companytended that investigation revealed that the accused persons had forged documents using blank letter head, papers and cheque leaves of the appellant given to him before entering into business transactions.
Later, in January 2002, a Memorandum of Understanding in writing was executed between the appellant and the Mill.
On 20 05 2004, the appellant lodged a companyplaint at the Edapadi Police Station, Salem district against respondents for offences under Sections 420 and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
On 18 10 2005, the appellant, as a de facto companyplainant, filed an application numbered Crl.
M.P. No.9149 of 2005 in Crl.
The appellant has further alleged that respondent No.2/accused No.2 Shri Chokalingam had, from out of the said quantity of companyton lint, purchased lint weighing about 47,164 kgs of the value of Rs.26,93,289/ on credit basis and the balance which was worth Rs.35,26,561.69 had been entrusted to the Mill for companyversion into yarn.
On 30 11 2005, the High Court referred the matter to the Conciliation and Mediation Centre for resolution of the dispute between the parties, in the absence of the appellant, being the companyplainant.
The respondents/ accused Nos.5 to 13 are also responsible for administering the Mill.
By an order dated 29 08 2005, the High Court disposed of the criminal original petition by directing the respondent to file a final Report within three months from the date of receipt of a companyy of the said order.
According to the appellant, since the police did number companyduct the investigation properly, the appellant was companystrained to file Crl.
O. P. No.27039/2005.
The appellant has alleged that pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the appellant supplied 1,03,920 Kgs of companyton lint to the Mill for companyversion into yarn.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition being Crl.
The respondent State filed its companynter affidavit to the aforesaid application under Section 482 Cr.
4/accused No.4 Sri Sundar is the son of the Managing Director being the respondent No.2/accused No.2 and is in charge of the affairs of the Mill.
It is stated that since the amount involved exceeded the limit for invocation of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the local Police Station, the Superintendent of Police transferred the investigation to the District Crime Branch and the same was registered as Crime No.54/2005 under Sections 420, 409 and 34 IPC on 22 06 2005.
By the impugned order dated 20 03 2006, the High Court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.
54 of 2005 alleging that the allegations in the companyplaint did number prima facie make out the offences for which the respondents had been charged.
The appellant opposed the companyciliation proceedings companytending that the offences were number compoundable whereupon the case was again referred back to the High Court for decision on merits.
P.C., the Police did number register any companyplaint.
M.P. No.8370 of 2005 for intervention in Crl.
Furthermore, there was evidence that one of the accused mentioned in the FIR namely Prasanna Chakravarthy had deposed about the forged letter prepared by him on the instruction of Kasi Viswanathan, Meiyappan, Rajarathinam, and Jayapal.
O.P. No.23354 of 2005 in the High Court of Madras for direction on the Investigation Officer of Crime No.54 of 2005 to arrest the accused mentioned in the FIR, companyplete the investigation and file a final report.
P.C. and prayed that the said application be dismissed.
O.P. No.23354 of 2005 for extension of time, by a further period of six months, for companypletion of investigation in Crime No.54 of 2005.
Indira Banerjee, J. This appeal is against the final judgment and order dated 20 03 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, inter alia, allowing Criminal Original Petition No.27039 of 2005 filed under Section 482 Cr.
The appellant, Shri Ravi Kumar carries on business of companyton ginning and companyversion of companyton into yarn at Salem, Tamil Nadu as proprietor of SARAVANA YARN TRADERS.
