This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.2 of 2015, pending on the file of the respondent Police. The petitioner has been shown as A-2 in the FIR.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Mayakrishnan had remitted a total sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to the Financial Establishment run by A-1 to A-4 in a name and style of Jalagandeswarar Auto Finance. The said Mayakrishnan came to know that the accused persons have collected various amounts from different depositors and have defaulted in repaying the deposits even after maturity. Therefore, he insisted the repayment of the amount remitted by him. Since it was not repaid, he gave a complaint to the respondent Police and the respondent Police have registered an FIR against four accused persons for an offence under Section 120 b, 406, 420 IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act. [TNPID Act "hereinafter referred as 'the Act"]

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submitted that Section 5 of the Act will not be attracted in this case since even as per the complainant, the amount was paid by him towards a chit transaction. The learned counsel submitted that the amount remitted in a chit transaction will not satisfy the requirements of Section 5 of the Act which talks about default in repayment of deposit and the amount paid towards a chit transaction is not a deposit. In order to substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in P. Sukumar .Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040 and others made in Crl.O.P.No.26826 of 2013 dt.27.04.2015.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petitioner and submitted that due to the pendency of the criminal original petition, the respondent Police is not able to proceed further with the investigation in a case where a large number of depositors have been cheated by the accused persons.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused persons have defaulted nearly to the tune of Rs.6,67,62,444/- and till now 403 complaints have been received by the respondent Police. The learned counsel would submit that A-1 to A-4 canvassed and induced the public to deposit their amount in the Finance Company run by the accused persons and the accused persons have converted the deposit amount and subscription received by them into immovable properties in their own names. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused persons have issued receipts and cards printed as "Sri Jalagandeswarar Auto Finance and Chits" with registration No.3 of 2000. When this was checked by the Police, it was found that this registration number does not pertain to the Company run by the accused persons and it belongs to one Ponnusamy who is running a business in the name and style of Long-O-Cool Drinks. The learned counsel therefore submitted that prima facie a fraud has been committed against the general public by exhibiting the false registration number which also requires investigation.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further refuted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that a chit transaction will not amount to a deposit under Section 5 of the Act, on the ground that the accused persons have collected lump sum amounts from the general public and issued receipts for the same, and therefore, the amounts received by the accused persons clearly falls within the definition of deposit under Section 2(2) of the Act, 1997. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that this Court should not interfere with the investigation, which is at a very crucial stage and already the Police have recorded the statements from more than 150 depositors. A detailed counter has also been filed by the Inspector of Police, EOW-II, explaining the entire details of the case and also the facts that got revealed during the course of investigation.

7.