The above Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in C.C.No.8431 of 2002 on the file of the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and quash the same.

2. The petitioners, who are the husband and wife and respectively aged 76 and 68 years, are the accused before the Court below in the said criminal case, which was registered on the complaint lodged by one Dr.A.G.Manimekalai for the offences punishable under Sections 406,405 and 383 r/w.384 IPC.

3. The allegations against the petitioners are that during the year 1988-89, the informant Dr.A.G.Manimekalai purchased a house property at Door No.28, Krishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 through the first petitioner, who is a broker, and in order to settle the full amount for the purchased property, the first petitioner induced the informant to obtain a sum of Rs.3,50,000/= from him after obtaining the original title deed and a written letter from the informant in the name of his wife i.e. the second petitioner; that the first petitioner promised that whenever the informant settled the said amount at once, he would return the title deed as well as the letter of deposit given to his wife, the second petitioner, but, even after the final payment was effected on 6.3.1991 and in spite of the informant requesting the petitioners to return the original title deed and the letter of deposit, both the petitioners returned only the title deed but not the letter of deposit under a false pretext that it might have been lost and also threatened the informant and her father over phone and in person several times and also through some unknown persons in filthy language with intent to refuse and conceal the letter of deposit and to create certain forged documents and thus caused wrongful loss to the informant. The said complaint of the informant was investigated into by the respondent police and also filed a final report in C.C.No.8431 of 2002 before the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, which is pending trial. At this stage, the petitioners/accused have come forward to file the above criminal original petition to quash the said criminal proceedings.

4. In the above petition, the petitioners would submit that the informant did not repay the amount borrowed by her and hence the second petitioner filed a suit in C.S.No.550/2001 on the file of this Court for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,58,000/= and evading summons in the said suit, as a counter-blast, the informant had lodged a false complaint with the respondent; that they filed a petition to quash the FIR in Crl.O.P.No.6357 of 2002, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court, while disposing of the said matter by order dated 13.11.2002 observed that `as per the allegations made in the FIR, a civil transaction took place in between the parties and considering the civil transaction, I do not think that the offence of criminal breach of trust has been made out. But, the only allegation found in the complaint for investigation is that 10 days prior to the complaint, the complainant was receiving threatening phone calls from the accused and some other persons interested on the accused, demanding an amount of Rs.11 lakhs and return of letter of deposit given in the name of the second accused, who is the wife of the first accused. To investigate as to whether there are actually any threats, the investigating agency has taken more than a year but even now, they could not decide whether any threat was actually administered by any of the accused'. The learned single Judge has further directed the investigating agency to complete the investigation within a month from the date of the said order.

5. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that the offence under Section 406 IPC is punishable for a term which may extend to three years and the offence under Section 384 IPC is punishable for a term which may extend to two years; that the complaint was give