The Petitioner, who has been arrayed as A1 in CC.No.255/2004, has filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash the complaint.

.2. The Respondent/complainant has filed the private complaint for the offences under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Panruti against one Meenakshisundaram in the capacity of Manager of M/s.Citycorp Finance (India) Limited and one K.Thanappan, Manager of M/s.Sriram Transport Finance.

3. The Respondent/complainant is said to have purchased a Swaraj Mazda Van bearing Registration No.TN-31-D-7787 and the Petitioner Company had financed to an extent of Rs.4,58,000/-. The 2nf accused is its Agent. According to the complainant, he had paid all the installments with the office of the 2nf accused and had obtained receipts. It is further stated that when he approached the petitioner Company, he had come to know that the interest was calculated at 10.5% p.a for 47 months at Rs.4,58,000/-, instead of 4.5% p.a. and on that basis, he had been directed to pay the remaining amount, in default to pay the penalty. The Respondent has received a letter from the office of the 2nf accused on 27. 2004 that there is a balance of Rs.70,542/-and if he failed to pay, his vehicle would be seized. In such view of the matter, the Respondent had filed the complaint, stating that the petitioner company and the 2nf accused have been charging exorbitant interest and they are liable to be punished under the Money Lenders Act and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act.

4. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the said complaint and issued process to the accused made therein. The summons issued to the petitioner Company herein represented by its Manager Meenakshisundaram had been returned on the ground that there was no such person. In response to the last summons sent by the Court, the petitioner K.K.Saravanakumar appears to have responded, stating that there is no such person in the name of Meenakshisundaram nor there was any such designation. Immediately, the original complaint seems to have been altered and a fresh prayer had been included by implicating the Petitioner herein as an accused, representing the Petitioner Company. Aggrieved against the same, this Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

.5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contended that the complaint filed earlier did not contain the name of the petitioner herein and when the petitioner responded to the summons issued in the name of Meenakshisundaram, stating that there was no such person in the name of Meenakshisundranm, alterations had been made in the complaint implicating the petitioner herein as Accused, representing the Company, M/s.Citicorp Finance (India) Limited without any basis. He would further contend that the Magistrate has allowed the complainant to include the name of the petitioner as representing the M/s.Citicorp Finance (India) Limited, in spite of the fact that he has taken cognizance of the complaint in the name of the Meenakshisundaram, representing the said Company. He would contend that the Magistrate cannot exercise his inherent power by permitting the Respondent to rectify the defects in the complaint, once he had taken cognizance of the complaint and the same is illegal.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this court rendered in the case of A.L. Lakshmanan Vs. K.N. Palanisamy (2007-2-TNLR-167-Mad), wherein this court has set aside the orders passed by the Magistrate, allowing the complainant to rectify the defects in the complaint.

7. In the decision referred to above, the Magistrate passed the order, allowing the complainant to make correction in the date of the promissory note. This court relying on the decision rendered in the case of A. Vinayagam Vs. Dr. Subash Chandran (2000-1-LW-Cri-460), s