O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.754 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alandur.

2. The second respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 120(b), 406, 407, 417, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

3. The second respondent filed this complaint alleging that a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s.Parak Enterprises was constituted among the first respondent, second respondent and one Pramod K.Dhanpal for the purpose of running business of laying highways and construction of buildings, in which the first respondent invested a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to the first accused namely, the second respondent herein, as a hand loan for investing his share and the partners of the said firm are running their business. That apart, the first respondent also paid a sum of Rs.3,43,750/- for the purpose of stamp duty to the second respondent herein. The second respondent also produced some letters as if he was allotted on some project work. Suspected the said communications when the first respondent demanded the second respondent to return the money, the second respondent failed to return the same and the first respondent asked for his money return back.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly the petitioner is not a partner of the partnership firm called M/s.Parak Enterprises. The partners are the respondents 1 and 2 and one Pramod K.Dhanpal. The petitioner who is being the father-in-law of the second respondent has been falsely implicated as an accused. In fact, the first respondent filed a complaint only as against the petitioner and the second respondent herein. However, it is only a money transaction between the first and second respondents. There is no iota of evidence as against the petitioner to attract any of the offences as alleged by the second respondent. Even according to the first respondent, the second respondent stated that his father-in-law is working in the National Highways Department, Chennai and through him he can get contract work for the first respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent failed to secure any business as promised by him and cheated the amount which was received by him from the first respondent. He further submitted that the first respondent already lodged a complaint before the CCB, Chennai and the same was enquired in detail by the Inspector of Police, CCB Team-3, Egmore, Chennai. Thereafter, by the closure report dated 17.04.2013, closed the complaint filed by the first respondent on the ground that it is only a money transaction between the first and second respondents that too for a sum of Rs.3,43,750/-. There is no other material to show that the first respondent paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to the second respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14848 of 2013 for a direction to register the complaint, dated 22.02.2013.

5. When the matter was hearing by this Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint lodged by the first respondent was already enquired and the same was closed by the closure report dated 17.04.2013. Recorded the said submission, this Court disposed the petition with a liberty to the first respondent to workout his alternative remedy in accordance with law, if he so desires. After a period of four years, the first respondent filed a present impugned private complaint. Without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court mechanically had taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as second accused in the private complaint lodged by the first respondent. There are specific allegations as against the petitioner, who is none other than the father-in- law of the second respondent here