JUDGMENT :

N.V. Ramana, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 25th September, 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal of the Respondent No. 1 (accused) filed Under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure quashing the final report filed by the police against him in Crime No. 889 of 1996 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Salem.

3. The brief facts of the case, sans unnecessary details, are that on 20th September, 1996 the Appellant herein lodged a complaint with the Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem, Tamilnadu to the effect that on the preceding day at about 11 a.m. about 25 persons, sent by the accused--Respondent No. 1, armed with deadly weapons entered her residence, forcibly tied her and her mother-in-law and locked them up in a room. Then they went into the office portion of her husband in the same premises and by threatening the staff at knife point, took away important documents pertaining to some transactions between her husband and the accused (Respondent No. 1). It was also alleged that the assailants had taken away some files relating to other clients of her husband.

4. From the complaint, it appears that the Respondent No. 1 owns a quarry of granites and husband of the Appellant is an Auditor by profession and also deals with quarrying business. At the relevant time there were business transactions going on between them out of which, the Respondent No. 1 owed a sum of Rs. 36,87,933/- to the husband of the complainant. Since the accused was repeatedly asked to repay the debt amount, enmity erupted between the complainant's husband and the Respondent No. 1.

5. On the basis of the complaint, on 20th September, 1996 an FIR was registered by the Hasthampatty Police Station as Crime No. 889 invoking Sections 147, 447, 395 and 506(ii) Indian Penal Code against the Respondent No. 1 and 25 other persons for the offences of unlawful assembly with common intention of committing dacoity, house trespass, wrongful confinement of the Appellant and her mother-in-law with criminal intimidation etc. Subsequently, upon investigation, the FIR was closed by the police as a mistake of fact and the Appellant claims that she was not put on notice before closing the FIR.

6. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a protest petition and the learned Judicial Magistrate directed re-investigation. Aggrieved by the order of learned Magistrate, the complainant preferred Criminal O.P. No. 12277 of 2001 before the High Court of Madras seeking transfer of investigation to C.B., C.I.D. The High Court by order dated 10th July, 2001, directed the Appellant to approach the Superior Police Officer for investigation. Then, on the application moved by the Appellant, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Salem entrusted the investigation to Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station. Though the investigation was entrusted to the Sooramangalam Police Station, a Charge Sheet has been filed by the Hasthampatti Police Station before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Assailing the charge sheet, Respondent No. 1 filed Criminal O.P. No. 13211 of 2003 before the High Court. By order dated 11th July, 2003, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Police to take steps to withdraw the Charge Sheet filed by Hasthampatti Police and directed the Sooramangalam Police to file a final report after investigation of the case. Accordingly, the Sooramangalam Police filed its final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate making out a case against the accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 147, 342, 395 and 450, Indian Penal Code.

7. The 1st Respondent being aggrieved by the report of the Sooramangalam Police, preferred Criminal O.P. No. 8345 of 2004 before the High Court Under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, initially tried to find out an amicable settlement between the parties by appointing Mr. T.C. Vijayaraghava