R. Mala, J.

The petitioners have come forward for quashing the case in C.C. No. 769 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore for the offences punishable under sections 120(B) and 420 IPC.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A3 and A4 have come forward with this application that the second respondent has given a complaint dated 21.11.2010 against the first and second accused, who are none other than the parents of A4 for the offences punishable under sections 120(B) and 420 IPC and the case has been registered in Crime No. 103 of 2012. After investigation, charge sheet has been laid against these petitioners along with A2 on 26.11.2014. A1 was died on 5.1.2013.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered and in the 161 statement of the defacto complainant, nothing has been stated against this petitioner/A4. Even though he is the son of A1 and A2, he has not taken part in the commission of the offence. Further more, he had further stated that in the complaint itself, the petitioner sought for action against A1 and A2 and against the proprietary concern, Lakshmi Metal Works. The investigation agency has concealed this aspect and laid the charge sheet and hence he prayed for quash of charge against A4. He relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 (5) Supreme Court Cases page 103, Raghu Lakshminarayanan v. Fine Tubes and submitted that the proprietary concern is an individual capacity and the proprietary concern differs from partnership firm, owned by an individual by his position and prayed for quash against the petitioners.

4. Resisting the same, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/second respondent submitted that this respondent has lent money to Rajendra Prasad/A1 for his business purpose and A1 and A2, with an intention to cheat this defacto complainant had borrowed money on several occasions. Some amounts have been transferred by RTGS transactions, but he has not repaid the borrowed money. Hence the complaint has been given. Since A1 has died, A4, who is now proprietor of the proprietary concern, Lakshmi Metal works, he is liable to pay the amount. Hence he has been added as an accused. Hence, even during the investigation, the investigating authority has rightly investigated in the right direction and filed charge sheet against A3 an A4 also and prayed for dismissal.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since A1 died on 5.1.2013, his son A4, as a legal heir taken over his father's proprietary concern and hence he has been added as an accused.

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and on perusal of typed set of papers, the second respondent herein has given a complaint on 21.11.2010 for the offences under sections 120(B) and 420 IPC stating that A1 and A2 with dishonest intention received the amount as loan for his business purpose by giving false representation, failed to repay the amount and when it was demanded, he issued cheques, knowing fully well that he is not having sufficient money in his bank account, thereby, he committed the offences punishable under sections 120(B) and 420 IPC. The first respondent has registered a case in Crime No. 103 of 2012 and after investigation, he has filed charge sheet against A1 to A4, since A1 has died on 05.01.2013, his son has been included as A4 and A3 proprietary concern has been cited as an accused.

7. It is well settled law that a criminal culpable offence shall not be inherited by their heirs. Once the accused died, the charge against the accused has been dismissed as abates. So the first respondent in his counter has stated that the Lakshmi Metal Works has been inherited by his son and so they are necessary accused, does not merit acceptance. The investigating agency without knowing the basic thing and without applying its mind had filed the charge sheet against A4, who is only the legal heir of the de