The central legal point established in the judgment is that the sustainability of a prosecution can be affected by the long delay in filing a complaint, insufficiency of material evidence, and lack of details regarding the alleged offense, leading to a finding of abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for records pertaining to the C.C.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID (in Fin.Estts.) Act, 1997 at Coimbatore, for the offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 420, 506 (ii) IPC & 5 of TNPID Act, 1997 and quash the same.)

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.2 of 2022, on the file of the Special Court under TNPID (in Fin.Estts.) Act, 1997, Coimbatore, for the offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 420, 506 (ii) IPC & 5 of TNPID Act, 1997 and quash the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case in C.C.No.15 of 2015 is pending on the file of the Special Court under TNPID (in Fin.Estts.) Act, 1997, Coimbatore, against one M/s.Keyes Mercantile and seven others. The sum and substance of the allegations made in the final report are that the accused collected deposit amounts from various depositors to the tune of Rs.21,64,82,450/- and cheated them. The deposits were said to have been collected over a period of time from 2009. Based on the complaint given by one Baladhandayutham, FIR in Crime No.4 of 2010, under Sections 3 and 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and 420 IPC and 5 of TNPID Act, was registered in Economic Offences Wing –II Unit, Coimbatore. After filing of the final report, the case was taken on file in C.C.No.15 of 2015 and the case is pending for trial. For the similar offences, respondent has filed a private complaint in C.C.No.2 of 2022, on the file of the Special Court under TNPID (in Fin.Estts.) Act, 1997, Coimbatore. A1 to A7 in C.C.No.15 of 2015 are shown as accused in C.C.No.2 of 2022. A8 Dhanasekaran is not shown as an accused in C.C.No.2 of 2022. Instead of A8 Dhanasekaran, respondent had shown Sathyasai, petitioner herein as A8 in C.C.No.2 of 2022. On the basis of this private complaint, the learned Trial Judge framed charges against the petitioner. The only charge against the petitioner is that he made criminal intimidation against respondent and his family members.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged filing of C.C.No.2 of 2022, mainly on the ground that filing of a private complaint in the year 2022 for the alleged offences that had happened on 17.12.2009 is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law. Anybody can give a complaint of criminal intimidation against anybody. The complaint allegations did not make out a cognizable offence as against the petitioner for trying petitioner under Section 506 (ii) IPC. The allegations are not supported by any material evidence.

4. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment in Vikram Johar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 for the proposition that unless the ingredients of the offences under Section 506 are made out, accused cannot be prosecuted.

5. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.Nos.1047-1048/2021, dated 27.09.2021, in Ravindranatha Bajpe Vs.Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. & Others Etc., for the proposition that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise, and then examine, if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.

6. He further relied on the judgment in Crl.A.No.283 of 2021 dated 08.03.2021 in Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. &Anr., for the proposition that filing a private complaint without any prelude, after a gap of six years from the date of giving information to the police, smacks of mala fide on the part of complainant. The sword of Damocles cannot be allowed to forever hang on their heads, falling unpredictably at the whims of a litigant seeking to harass and p