S. Baskaran, J.

The petitioner, who is the 1st accused in C.C.No.19 of 2007 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, has come forward with this petition seeking to quash the said complaint.

2. The petitioner states that he is the 1st accused in C.C.No.19 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC read with 34 IPC and 2nd accused is the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner states that he is the Garment Exporter and doing business at New Delhi; he do not have any transaction with the complainant, who is the 1st respondent herein.

3. According to the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent herein, he was having business transaction with the 2nd accused/2nd respondent herein and in that connection, the 2nd accused agreed to pay Rs.8 lakhs as compensation in respect of cancellation of the order placed by him with the 1st respondent herein; accordingly, the 2nd respondent/2nd accused gave cheque dated 30.05.2006 drawn by the petitioner/1st accused to the 2nd respondent/2nd accused and the same was allegedly made over by the 2nd respondent/2nd accused to the 1st respondent/complainant, in connection with the business transaction between them, with due endorsement by the 2nd respondent/2nd accused in favour of the complainant/1st respondent herein.

4. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant was requested by the 2nd respondent/2nd accused herein not to present the cheque and the same should be returned once cash was paid in lieu of the cheque since no cash was paid till November 2006 and on instruction of the 2nd accused/2nd respondent herein, the said cheque was presented on 27.11.2006 and the same was returned on 02.12.2006 with the endorsement as "out of date". In such circumstances, it is stated by the complainant/1st respondent that the notice dated 04.01.2007 was issued to both the accused and the averments in the notice was denied by the petitioner/1st accused by his reply dated 15.01.2007.

5. According to the complainant, both the accused promised to pay the amount and only on the instruction of both the accused, the complainant presented the cheque to the Bank and the same was dishonoured. It is the contention of the complainant that both the accused cheated him in a preplanned manner and therefore, sought for a direction to the Police to register and investigate the complaint or in the alternative, to enquire the complaint under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., by the court concerned.

6. According to the petitioner, the complaint dated 31.01.2007 lodged by the 1st respondent was taken cognizance by the trial court on 01.02.2007 and the same was done without appreciation of facts in the proper manner. According to the petitioner/1st accused, there is no material to show that the 1st accused committed any offence and in such circumstances, taking cognizance of the complaint by the trial court against the petitioner/first accused, is improper. According to the petitioner, there is nothing in the complaint to disclose the contract or otherwise business relationship existed between the petitioner/1st accused and the complainant/1st respondent herein. Further it is contended that there is no material produced by the complainant to disclose any culpability against the petitioner herein. Likewise, it is pointed out that there is nothing on record to suggest existing of common intention to commit offence under Section 420 of IPC among the accused. It is pointed out that the averments in the complaint only stated about transactions between the complainant and the 2nd accused/2nd respondent and the endorsement made by the 2nd accused on the cheque issued by the 1st accused to the complainant and this itself would go to show that there is no privity of contract and there is no culpability between the petitioner/1st accused and the complainant/1st respondent herein. The petitioner further states that he is neither the associate of the 2nd accus