This petition has been filed by the 1st and 3rd in C.C.No.213 of 2007 before the lower court to quash the proceedings pending against them as not sustainable.

.2. The material facts submitted by the petitioners in the petition are as follows: The respondent as complainant had presented a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Karaikal and it was taken on file in C.C.No.213 of 2007 for the alleged offence u/s. 464 and 420 I.P.C as a private complaint. The respondent as the complainant had averred that he was working as a salesman in one M/s. Ram Kumar Agencies from 2001 onwards and he was said to have entrusted 10 cheque leaves to the 2nd petitioner/A3 as a loyal, sincere and faithful worker and A3 did not settle salary dues and incentives to the respondent/complainant and one of the cheques entrusted by the respondent/complainant was handed over by the 1st and 3rd accused to one Mr.Prabakaran, son of Ramalingam who is also arrayed as 4th accused in the above complaint and it was typed by the 4th accused for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- and the said cheque was dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient" for which A4 preferred a complaint u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal and therefore the petitioners namely A1 and A3 have committed the offences u/s. 464 and 420 I.P.C.

3. The said complaint filed by the respondent was against four persons in which A4 is a stranger to other persons and the 1st petitioner/A1 is the proprietrix of Ram Kumar Agencies and A2 is one Naganathan, the Manager of Ram Kumar Agencies. A3 the 2nd petitioner herein is a pharmacist in E.S.I and A4 has nothing to do with the said Ram Kumar Agencies nor any connection with the accused 1 to 3. The complainant who was working as a salesman under the 1st petitioner was drawing his salary every month without fail. His duty was to collect the amounts from various shops for which he misappropriated some of the amounts due to the Ram Kumar Agencies and therefore the 1st petitioner filed a complaint before the Karaikal police station. The respondent/complainant did not pay the amounts collected from M/s. Commercial Traders to the 1st petitioner/A1. The respondent/complainant had given a false complaint only to divert the attention from the issue of the said misappropriation of cash and to escape from the criminal proceedings.

4. The respondent/complainant never handed over the cheque leaves to the petitioner and there is no need to hand over the cheque leaves to A4 Mr.Prabakaran who is a stranger to the petitioners. The allegations made by the respondent in the complaint are completely wrong and they were made only to escape from the clutches of criminal proceedings pending in S.T.R.No.1308 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Karaikal u/s. 138 of N.I.Act.

5. The respondent had also filed a complaint before the Labour Officer against the 1st petitioner and he did not mention the name of the 2nd petitioner/A3 as the owner of Ram Kumar Agency. Having filed a complaint before the labour court and a complaint against him u/s. 138 of N.I.Act is pending before him, the present complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner and two others is a false one and it was given in order to escape from the clutches of the criminal proceedings pending against him filed by the accused A4. The alleged offence u/s. 464 I.P.C is not at all made out against the petitioners as they never created any document against the respondent herein. The respondent has also not produced any material to prove the offence u/s. 420 I.P.C. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is an abuse of process of law and it has been filed by the respondent for only to harass the petitioners.

6. The allegations in the complaint are vague and no specific allegations or averments against the petitioners for the commencement of such allegations. The dispute between the 1st petitioner and the Commercial