ORDER :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the final report filed by the first respondent/Police which has been taken on file by the Court below in C.C. No. 145 of 2011. The Court below has taken cognizance of the final report for the offence under Sections 294(B), 504, 506(ii) and 509 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the second respondent/De-facto complainant and the first Petitioner (A1) are known to each other and both of them had jointly done some business. There was some misunderstanding between the parties and the first Petitioner is said to have demanded some money which is due and payable to him in the business. After sometime, it is alleged that the accused persons had threatened the de-facto complainant and her husband. The further allegation that has been made is that the accused persons started making phone calls from 22.9.2009 onwards and were using abusive language and were threatening the de-facto complainant. Therefore, a complaint came to be given to the first respondent/Police on 7.3.2010 and an FIR was registered in Crime No. 334 of 2010.

3. The first respondent/Police, in the course of investigation, recorded the statements of the de-facto complainant, her husband and five other witnesses.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the entire complaint is attended with mala-fides and a dispute between the partners is attempted to be given a criminal colour. The learned counsel submitted that the entire threat as per the de-facto complainant is said to have been made through Mobile Phone. This threat is said to have taken place from 22.9.2009. However, the complaint itself came to be given with an extraordinary delay of nearly six months only during March 2010. The learned counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no material to show that such phone calls were made by the accused persons to the Mobile phone belonging to the de-facto complainant and the official witness who was examined by the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he was not able to find out the details of the phone calls due to the delay in lodging the complaint. The learned counsel submitted that except the deposition of L.W. 1 and L.W. 2, there is not even a scrap of material for the prosecution to proceed further with the trial in this case. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for the quashing of the proceedings.

5. Per contra, Mr. R. Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/de-facto complainant submitted that the complaint and the statement recorded from the de-facto complainant would clearly reveal the manner in which the de-facto complainant was abused in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. The learned counsel submitted that the phone conversation was also heard by the husband of the de-facto complainant and he has also spoken about the same to the Investigating Officer while his statement was recorded. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that based on the statement given by the de-facto complainant and her husband, a prima facie case has been made out and the materials available are enough to frame charges against the petitioners. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the present Criminal Original petition is liable to be dismissed and a time limit should be fixed for the completion of trial.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent/Police submitted that there are sufficient materials to proceed further in this case and just because the call details are not available, it does not mean that the prosecution cannot establish the case and the statements given by L.W. 1 and L.W. 2 are enough to prosecute the petitioners for various offences under which, they are charged. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought for fixing a time limit for completion of the trial.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions m