ORDER :

The present petition arises due to the registration of FIR by the 1st respondent on the directions of this Court in Crl. O.P. No.30 of 2018 vide order dated 11.1.2018 against the petitioners for the alleged offences u/s 120 (B), 409, 420 and 506 (i) IPC, which has been lodged by the 2nd respondent.

2. It is the case of the prosecution, as is evident from the FIR registered on the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent is that the petitioners are associated in a senior position with M/s.Chemplast Sanmar Ltd., and they had approached the firm of which the 2nd respondent is a partner and induced the firm to buy 60 lakh shares worth Rs.3 Crores, on the premise that the said amount would triple within a very short time. Believing the words of the petitioners, the firm invested Rs.3 Crores in the shares for which a cheque was issued by the firm from its current account.

3. It is the further case of the prosecution that instead of transferring the amount of Rs.9 Crores to the defacto complainant's partnership company, which is the profit of the shares purchased from the petitioners' firm, the amount was remitted to the personal account of the father-in-law of the defacto complainant. It is the further case of the prosecution that after transfer of the amount to the personal account of Mr.V.N.Ayyadurai, the petitioners' firm sought reinvesting of the said sum back in the shares, which was acceded to by Mr.V.N.Ayyadurai.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that when the defacto complainant enquired about the petitioners about the amount invested in shares and the profits thereof, the petitioners threated that they would cancel the dealership of the defacto complainant's partnership firm. Alleging non-payment of the money due to the defacto complainant's partnership firm from the petitioners' firm, the present complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant, which has been registered in Crime No.10 of 2018 on the file of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said registration of the case, the present petition has been filed for quashment of the same.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that subsequent to the receipt of the money, 60 lakh shares of the value of Rs.3 Crores was issued in favour of Mr.V.N.Ayyadurai and on completion of the period, the amount of Rs.9 Crores, as has been undertaken, has been credited to the account of Mr.V.N.Ayyadurai and, thereafter, the said Mr.V.N.Ayyadurai has also reinvested the said amount in shares in the petitioners' firm. Therefore, the present petition by the defacto complainant is nothing but an arm twisting tactic to gain unjust enrichment by demanding payment of the amount to the defacto complainant's firm.

6. In this regard, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the share certificate pertaining to the allotment made to the said Mr.V.N.Ayyadurai, which has been annexed in the typed set, which share certificate was issued as early as on 27.04.2009 on receipt of the amount, clearly shows that even at the first instance, the shares were issued in the name of Mr.V.N.Ayyadurai and that being the case, the subsequent allotment of shares in the name of V.N.Ayyadurai, after payment has been made by the petitioner's firm cannot be found fault with. If at all the defacto complainant is aggrieved, she has to proceed against V.N.Ayyadurai and not against the petitioners' firm. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the defacto complainant, being the daughter-in-law of the said V.N.Ayyadurai should have been conscious of the issuance of shares in the name of V.N.Ayyadurai, as early as on 27.4.2009, but had kept quiet and had filed the complaint only during April, 2018.

7. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that even the complaint clearly reveals that the amount has been paid by the petitioners to the personal account of V.N.Ayyadurai way back on 28.4.201