The main legal point established in the judgment is that factual disputes should be adjudicated in a trial court, and vague or improbable allegations may constitute an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records and quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C. No. 219 of 2020 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madukkarai.)

1. The petition is to quash the private complaint in C.C. No. 219 of 2020 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madukkarai for the alleged offences under Sections 120 B, 406, 420 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners were known to the respondent herein; that the respondent was dealing in the sales of medical equipments and is running a company called M/s.Cardio Park and Co; that the first petitioner is a police constable and the second petitioner is her husband; that since the petitioners were known to the complainant, the complainant enrolled the first petitioner in a Chit run by him; that in about nine chits, the first petitioner withdrew the amount on auction and promised to pay Rs.70,000/- per month; that thereafter on 08.04.2017, the complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/- for the medical expenses incurred by the first petitioner; that on 28.09.2017, paid another sum of Rs.1,50,000/-; that on 03.01.2018, paid another sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, thus totaling a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-; that on 03.04.2018, the first petitioner gave a cheque for Rs.6,00,000/-; that when the said cheque was presented, it was returned for the reason ''insufficient funds''; that the complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 520 of 2018 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.I at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore that the petitioners were due to pay Rs.4,70,000/- towards the amount due under the Chits and Rs.6,00,000/- towards the loan taken by him; that the first petitioner promised to return the money and failed to keep up the promise; that though the respondent filed a complaint before the Police, no action was taken against the petitioners; that the respondent gave a complaint earlier and the said complaint was quashed by this Court on the ground that the order taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate suffered from procedural lapses; that this Court had given liberty to the respondent to file a fresh complaint if he is advised to do so; and hence they had filed the instant complaint.

3. Mr. A.M. Rahamath Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the above allegations would not constitute the offence alleged against the petitioners. It is the admitted case of the complainant that for the alleged loan taken by the first petitioner, she had issued a cheque, which is the subject matter of proceedings before the Fast Track Court No.I at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 520 of 2018; that there is absolutely no allegation against the second petitioner except for stating that the second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner. The allegation only amounts to breach of promise and would not amount to cheating; that there is no allegation to suggest that there was deception at the inception; and that in any event Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out as there was no entrustment. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that the impugned complaint is an abuse of process of law and prayed for quashing of the complaint.

4. Mr.B.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the first petitioner had participated in the auction and withdrew money in nine Chits. She had promised to pay the Chit amounts in monthly installments of Rs.70,000/-. She was due to pay nearly Rs.4,70,000/- towards the said Chits. She has also taken a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- and towards the discharge of the said loan, she had issued a cheque and the said cheque got dishonoured; that the earlier complaint filed by her was quashed only because the learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure contemplated under law and t