The main legal point established in the judgment is that there can be no second F.I.R in respect of the same cognizable offense, and subjecting a citizen to fresh investigation on the basis of a second F.I.R is an abuse of the power of the court.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the complaint in C.C.No.1044 of 2009 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore and quash the same.

2. The respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners in C.C.No.1044 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 468 and 471 alleging that petitioners were running Sri Sapthagiri Financiers and that she, her husband and her mother deposited Rs.12,50,000/- and the petitioners had executed separate promissory notes in her favour and in favour of her husband and her mother. Her further case was that when she demanded the return of the amount, the first petitioner produced some forged receipts as if the amount has been repaid and because of the mental agony caused due to action of the petitioner her husband died. Thus she alleged that there is a criminal conspiracy between the petitioners for committing the offences.

3. On earlier occasion, the husband of the respondent herein lodged a complaint in Crime No.970 of 2005 in B.3 Kattur Police Station, Crime Branch, Coimbatore stating that he had deposited Rs.15,000/-, his wife Velumani (respondent) had deposited Rs.17,500/- and his mother-in-law Lakshmiammal deposited Rs.17,500/- on 15.10.1997 in Sri Sapthagiri Financiers which was conducted by the 1st petitioner with the assistance of his wife and daughter i.e., the petitioners 2 and 3. He also stated in the said complaint that the petitioners received 12 payments of Rs.50,000/- each from him and 12 payment of Rs.50,000/- each from his wife on 18.5.2002. However the 24 payments of Rs.50,000/- each said to have been made on 18.5.2002.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transactions were commenced from 1993 onwards which were between the first petitioner and the respondent, her husband and her mother in his individual capacity of the first petitioner and that the petitioners 2 and 3 herein have nothing to do with the said transactions or connected with the Sri Sapthagiri Financiers which was proprietary concern of the first petitioner. The first petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.10,92,000.51/- towards the interest and made endorsements on the previous promissory notes. He has also paid Rs.8,55,000/- towards principal amount for which he has obtained receipts. The husband of the respondent has given discharge receipts. After investigation the said complaint in Crime No.970 of 2005 was closed on 20.03.2007.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the first petitioner was the proprietor of Sri Sapthagiri Financiers and the petitioners 2 and 3 had no connection whatsoever in the said finance business of the first petitioner. The 24 promissory notes dated 18.5.2002 for Rs.50,000/- each were executed by the first petitioner and not by the petitioners 2 and 3. The said 24 promissory notes referred to in the list of documents of the said complaint describes the said promissory notes and the fixed deposit receipts were executed and issued by the first petitioner only. Further it has been stated in the said complaint that the receipts for the repayment of the amount were forged by the first petitioner only.

There is no averments made against the petitioners 2 and 3.

6. The learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent has filed the present complaint which is purely a civil liability on the basis of the promissory notes which are barred by limitation. The respondent having failed in the earlier attempt to convert the civil disputes into Criminal action now once again has filed the present complaint with ulterior motive not only against the first petitioner but also against the petitioners 2 and 3 who have nothing to do with the disputes involved between first petitioners and the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent-complainant is Velumani, W/o. dece