The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of evidence for fraud or dishonest inducement in a business transaction led to the discharge of the accused.

The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.5 of 2009 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the wife and daughter of the first petitioner. The second respondent is the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant is doing textile business in the name of Nirmala Tex, India Pvt. Ltd.

2. According to the charge sheet, during the year 2006, the accused 1 to 3 approached the de facto complainant, represented to him that they were also doing garment business and wanted to enter into a business transaction to purchase textile cloth.

3. As per the de facto complainant, accordingly on several occasions, during the years 2006-2007, the de facto complainant supplied textiles to the accused. The accused were also paying the cost of the cloth to the de facto complainant for sometime. Finally, the petitioners failed to pay a total sum of Rs. 1,00,62,835/- which is due under 46 bills. The de facto complainant demanded interest also at the rate of 24% for the same, thereafter, since the petitioners failed to settle the accounts, ‘the de facto complainant preferred a complaint to the police. When the said petition was enquired into on 27.6.2008, the accused paid a sum of Rs. 65,92,584/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- on 4.9.2008. The balance of Rs. 55,92,584/- has not been so far paid by the petitioners. This according to the final report amounts to an offence under Section 420 IPC read with 120-B IPC. Seeking to discharge, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No. 712 of 2009 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem and the same was dismissed by order dated 17.11.2009. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court with this revision.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the second respondent and also perused the records carefully.

5. In my considered opinion, at the outset, I have to state that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner what is involved in this case is, pure and simple, a civil transaction. No where it could be found that the petitioners either deceived for fraudulently or dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to deliver the products. Even according to the prosecution case, initially the business transaction between the accused and the de facto complainant was very smooth and the accused were also paying the cost for the textile purchased by them. From the records, it could be seen that at one stage, they failed to pay the amount which is due under 46 bills. It is my considered opinion, would not satisfy Section 415 Cr.P.C so as to attract Section 420 IPC or offence under Section 120-B IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem has not at all considered this aspect in their proper prospective.

6. Therefore, the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem deserves to be set aside. Since from the materials available on record, no offence warranting trial has been made out, I have no hesitation to order for discharge of the accused.

7. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem impugned in this revision is set aside and the petitioners are discharged. Crl. M.P. No.712 of 2009 stands allowed.