IMPORTANT POINT
When allegations in the private complaint would involve offences under Sections 420 and 211 IPC, then bar under Section 195 Cr. P.C. would apply to both offences since allegations constituting those offences were inseparable.

ORDER

M. Karpagavinayagam, J. - Frederick Gnanaraj and Franklin Jebaraj the petitioners herein have filed this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking for quashing of the proceedings out of a private complaint filed by one Kumarakannan, the respondent herein for the offences under Sections 420 and 211 I.P.C.

2. The gist of the private complaint filed against the petitioners is as follows:

''The second petitioner is the father of the first petitioner. The complainant is the Correspondent of a School situate at Chennai 89 and the Managing Trustee of Loyal Educational and Charitable Foundation at Chennai 92. The petitioners approached the complainant stating that one Technical Training Institute at Adambakkam is coming for sale and the owner of the said Institute is known to them and they could get the said Institute for a reasonable price to the complainant. The petitioners further represented in the said Institute 30 students were studying. Accordingly, the second petitioner took the complainant to Kodaikanal and introduced the owner. Sale agreement was entered into between the complainant and the owner. Out of the full sale price a sum of Rs. 50.000/- was paid as advance to the owner: of the Institute. When the second petitioner and the complainant were coming back to Chennai, the complainant was compelled by the second petitioner to issue a cheque for Rs. 1,20,000/- in the name of the first petitioner towards the future service charges which was earlier agreed to be paid to the second petitioner. Though he was not willing to give the cheque only under compulsion of the second petitioner the complainant issued the cheque for Rs. 1,20,000/- in the name of the first petitioner. The complainant specifically instructed the second petitioner not to present the cheque before the sale process is over. Thereafter, when the complainant went alongwith the second petitioner to the Institute, there were only 6 students studying. Further, the standard of the said Institute was also found to be very poor. Therefore, the complainant dropped the proposal for purchasing the said Institute and directed the second petitioner to return the cheque. Despite this, the petitioners presented the cheque, but the same was returned with endorsement "payment stopped by drawer", since the complainant informed the Bank to countermand the cheque. Thereafter, the petitioners/accused sent statutory notice on 6-2-1999 demanding the cheque amount. Subsequently, the first petitioner filed a false case against the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was taken on file in C.C. No. 2030 of 1999 by the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, which is still pending. Thus, both the petitioners cheated the complainant by dishonestly obtaining a cheque for Rs. 1,20,000/- from the complainant and after dishonoured, they filed the false complaint against the complainant herein and thus, they committed the offence under Sections 420 and 211 I.P.C."

3. The case of the petitioners as projected by the counsel for the petitioners is as follows:

"Kumarakannan is running a school in Chennai. He is already known to Franklin Jebaraj, the second petitioner, while he was employed as Deputy Director of Training, Director-ate of Employment and Training. Chepauk, Chennai. The said Kumarakannan represented to the first petitioner that he would be able to get a job in USA on an attractive remuneration. He demanded Rs. 1,20,000/- from the first petitioner to get an Engineer's job for him at USA. In May 1998, the petitioners paid the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- by way of cash to Kumarakannan. But subsequently they came to know that Kumarakannan made a false representation and got the amount. On coming to know of this, they told Kumarakannan that they would take action against him through proper forum. Under those circumstances the said Kumarakannan issued a cheque to the first petitioner for the said amount towards the discharge of the amount obt