1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings in C.C.No.9 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.

2. The petitioner is the accused, against whom the first respondent Police have filed a Final Report before the Court below for an alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution, as projected in the Final Report is that during the month of December 2011, the petitioner who was the Managing Director of an Export Company received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the second respondent as an advance to install 1 KWP OOF-GRID Solar Photovoltalic Power Plant, at the house of the de-facto Complainant. In the course of transaction, during September 2013, the petitioner installed 100 WT instead of 1 KWP without DC combiner Box, in the house of the second respondent and the said installation was not in accordance with the general specifications. Therefore, according to the Final Report, the cost of the product that was installed by the petitioner was only Rs.23,500/- and the petitioner caused a wrongful loss of Rs.1,27,000/- to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, a Final Report was filed by the respondent Police for an offence under Section 420 IPC.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the counsel for petitioner would submit that even on the entire reading of the Final Report, no offence has been made out under Section 420 of IPC. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that there was no dispute with regard to the fact that the Solar Power Plant was in fact installed at the house of the de-facto Complainant, and according to the de-facto Complainant, the product is only worth Rs.23,500/-. It is the further case of the de-facto Complainant that the petitioner had promised to install the balance 900 WT at a later point of time and the same was not complied with by the petitioner, and therefore, even if the said allegation is taken to be true, no offence under Section 420 IPC has been made out. The learned Senior counsel therefore submitted that this is a case of a defective equipment, that is said to have been installed by the petitioner and it is not worth the amount received by the petitioner and at the best this dispute can only be termed as a defective service, which will at the best attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, or the second respondent must have worked out his remedy only before a Competent Civil Court, and setting the criminal law in motion is not sustainable.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) representing the first respondent would submit that the materials available on record would clearly establish that the de-facto Complainant suffered a wrongful loss and there was a wrongful gain for the petitioner, and therefore, there are sufficient grounds to frame a charge under Section 420 of IPC, and in fact the Court below has also framed a charge under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court should not entertain the quash petition at this stage.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent has been cheated by the petitioner by collecting the entire amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and has been supplied with a Solar Power Equipment with a lower capacity. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the second respondent has been put to wrongful loss, and therefore, an offence of cheating under Section 420 has been prima facie made out.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side. The essence of the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the de-facto Complainant in order to install a Solar Power Plant of 1 KWP and ultimately installed a Solar Power Plant with a capacity of 100 WT and in spite of several promises failed to install the balance 900 WT. Therefore, according to the prosecution an offence under Section 420 has been made out.

8. I