At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.3 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.3 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of I.P.C as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto complainant is a resident of Chennai and he introduced one Balamurugan to the petitioner. The petitioner stated to the second respondent that he had supplied 'iridiyam' to Australian company and he has to receive a sum of Rs.10,000/- crores towards the above transaction. The petitioner had shown some documents purported to have been issued by Reserve Bank of India, as if the sum of Rs.10,000/- is due to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had induced the second respondent that if he pays a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, it will be returned as One crore. Believing the said words, the second respondent parted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of bank transaction and also a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. The petitioner had alleged that one Velu had also paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- under the above promise. The above occurrence had taken place during the year 2015. Since the petitioner had not honoured his promise, he started to ask for repayment of money. During the year 219, the petitioner had issued some signed, unfilled stamp papers as a security towards repayment. So far, the petitioner had not returned the money. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint on 24.02.2022. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R has been registered as against the petitioner.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following grounds:-

3.1. The petitioner is an agriculturist and doing life stock profession and he is having an organic farm and he is also doing extensive agricultural operation and also producing milk and selling in a larger manner. The petitioner had obtained licence from the Department of Industries and Commerce, as an M.S.M.E Udyok Aadhar Registration, Udyok Aadhar Memorandum. The petitioner is also an income tax assessee and submitted income tax return from 2013 to 2022. The petitioner had paid income tax for a sum of Rs.9,53,390/- during the Financial Year 2021-2022. The petitioner is also a registered Assessee under the GST Act and he has been paying the GST taxes for the products, he has been selling. The petitioner had not at all cheated the second respondent and he has no necessity to cheat the second respondent, as he is already engaged in agriculture allayed business industries.

3.2. The second respondent was introduced by one Balamurugan and the petitioner had obtained a loan for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- through Bank transaction and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash during the year 2015. The petitioner had repaid the amount, which he had received through bank transaction and he had also paid exorbitant interest towards the above loan amount. During the year 2019, the second respondent had demanded the remaining payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and the petitioner had agreed to pay the amount in order to avoid further complications. The dispute is purely a civil transaction between the parties and there was an exchange of documents and materials which will support that the transaction is purely civil in nature. The above complaint and subsequent investigation is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

5. On a perusal of the records revealed that the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Virud