G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This quash petition is filed to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.110 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 410, 419, 406, 409 and 120-(B) of I.P.C. as against the petitioners and others on the private complaint filed by the respondent.

2. The case of the complainant/respondent is that on 12.01.2004, he pledged few articles of gold weighing about 78 grams for a sum of Rs.48,000/- . Again, on 27.01.2004, he pledged gold jewels and other golden articles weighing about 118 grams for a sum of Rs.52,000/-. Further, on 03.01.2004, he pledged gold jewels along with other articles weighing 44 grams for a sum of Rs.18,000/- and also on 09.02.2004, again he pledged his gold jewels weighing about 55 grams for a sum of Rs.24,000/-. For all the pledges, the accused issued pawn tickets. Thereafter, the complainant approached the accused for redemption of jewels. However, he was informed that the jewels, which he pledged with the accused, were auctioned for non payment of the interest as well as the principal within a time stipulated by the accused. The complainant also came to understand that without following the Rule 12(6) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943, without giving sufficient time and without any prior notice to the complainant, the accused auctioned the jewels. Therefore, it is violation of Section 12(3) and 14(D)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act and Section 12(13) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1943. Hence, the complaint.

3. After receipt of the private complaint filed by the respondent, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi had taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 410, 419, 406, 409 and 120-(B) of I.P.C. totally as against seven persons. The petitioners in this quash petition are arraigned as A1 to A5. The said complaint is under challenge in the present quash petition filed by the petitioners/A1 to A5.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would raise the following grounds to quash the complaint filed against them:

(i) The offences having been taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate had not prima facie made out any offence to attract as against the petitioners. The respondent already lodged so many complaints before all the officials such as Reserve Bank of India, District Collector, Tahsildar and police personnels for the very same allegations and all the complaints were turned down. Therefore, the present complaint is nothing but forum shopping.

(ii) The materials on record do not disclose any of the offence as alleged by the complainant. It is also seen that the complainant availed loan by pledging all the jewels on four occasions and since, he did not redeem the pledged jewels with the stipulated time, the auction notices were duly sent and the same were duly received by the respondent. Even after the receipt of notice, the respondent did not redeem the jewels and hence, all the jewels were auctioned to realise the loan amount. Therefore, there are no offences made out as against the petitioners.

(iii) The petitioners 2 to 5 are the Chairman, Managing Director and Joint Managing Directors respectively of the Financial Company and they cannot be made vicariously liable to be prosecuted for the offences as alleged by the respondents. The first accused is a Company and the 6th accused is the Manager of the Principal Branch and the 7th accused is the auctioneer. There is no dishonest intention to induce the respondent to receive anything. Further, the act of pledge cannot amount to any entrustment. This is nothing but commercial transaction between the respondent and the petitioners. Therefore, no offences as alleged by the complainant are made out as against the petitioners.

(iv) The present complaint has been lodged after a period of 5 years. The jewels were pledged in the year 2004 and thereafter, auction sale notices were issued in November 2005 and Febru