JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.182 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi and quash the same against the petitioner.)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash C.C.No.182 of 2013, now pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi.

2. The petitioner is the second accused. It must be mentioned that even though notice had been directed to the second respondent/defacto complainant and a learned Counsel had also entered appearance, there was consistently no appearance on behalf of the second respondent. This Court had granted more than sufficient opportunity for appearance on behalf of the second respondent. However, since the complaint, which had been given by the second respondent, had been, subsequently, enquired into, on registration of the First Information Report by the first respondent and report had also been filed, which had been taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi and the first respondent is represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I hold that I can proceed further by examining the merits of the petition.

3. Heard Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner/A2 and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.

4. The second respondent herein had stood guarantee by offering his property as collateral security in a loan obtained by A1 from the State Bank of India, Pollachi branch. The petitioner/A2 and A1 are brothers. the petitioner was also working in the State Bank of India at Pollachi branch. The second respondent is the brother-in-law of A1. The loan obtained by A1 was not repaid. Therefore, the property offered by the second respondent was brought up for sale and after following due process, the said property was sold. Alleging that A1 and A2 and other accused had joined in conspiracy, the defacto complainant had given a complaint to the first respondent, who registered F.I.R in Crime No.879 of 2011 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 109, 149, 417, 420, 409, 120(b) of I.P.C.

5. It must also be mentioned that when the State Bank of India initiated auction proceedings, the second respondent had also filed a statutory appeal in S.A.No.25 of 2010 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. That was dismissed on 20.04.2010. The second respondent had also filed O.S.No.65 of 2006 on the file of Sub Court at Pollachi, which had also been dismissed on 13.03.2008. The first appeal in A.S.No.55 of 2008 had also been dismissed by the Principal District Judge. The appeal, filed against the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in R.A.(S.A) No.483 of 2010 had also been dismissed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. A Writ Petition filed in W.P.No.12875 of 2009, questioning an interlocutory order by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and a Writ Petition in W.P.No.10798 of 2010 filed against the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.25 of 2010 were both also dismissed.

6. Thereafter, the second respondent filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi. A sworn statement was recorded and after that, the private complaint was dismissed on 21.10.2010. A revision, filed against the said order in Crl.R.C.No.77 of 2011, was also dismissed as not pressed.

7. After taking all these steps and suffering adverse orders continuously, the second respondent, then lodged a police complaint and the first respondent registered F.I.R in Crime No.879 of 2011, as stated above, against A1 and A2 and also against three named auction purchasers of the property.

8. The F.I.R was quashed in Crl.O.P.Nos.1076, 1083 and 1084 of 2012 by order, dated 05.03.2012, with respect to the three auction purchasers.

9. Thereafter, the first respondent filed final report, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.182 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi. In the final report, apa