Criminal proceedings must demonstrate prima facie evidence for offenses alleged; mere delay and absence of trust undermine FIR validity.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.3 of 2022 on the file of 1^st respondent police.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The petitioners are ranked as accused 1 and 2 in the F.I.R. in Crime No.3 of 2022 registered for an offence under Sec.420, 409, 506(ii) of I.P.C. based on the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant.

4. Brief facts of the case is that the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant used to supply gold jewels to the petitioners on 90 days credit basis, for which the petitioners have to supply equal weight of the said jewels in 24 carat gold bars with their profit margin. Accordingly, in the first week of August 2007, the 1^st petitioner ordered jewellery weighing about 23 kgms., which was supplied by the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant at his father-in-law's house in Tirppur on 19.08.2007 and the 1^st petitioner assured to give gold bars weighing 23 kgs. within 3 months, but he failed to supply the gold bars. On many occasions, 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant requested them to give gold bars, but they have not complied. On 16.11.2021 around 11.00 a.m. near RK Residency, Avinasi Road, Tiruppur, the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant met the petitioners and demanded for gold bars, but they refused to pay the amount for the jewels and threatened him with dire consequences. Based on that, the F.I.R. was registered for an offence under Sec.420, 409, 506(i) of I.P.C. Now, the petitioners have filed this petition to quash the F.I.R. lodged against them.

5. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that they have not received any such gold bars as alleged by 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant nor the 1^st petitioner was partner of M/s.Navaratna Maaligai as stated in the complaint. In the complaint itself, it is stated that nearly about 17 years later from the date of handing over of gold bars weighing 23 kgs. Therefore, they prayed to quash the proceedings as there is no basic ingredient to attract the offence under Sec.406 as well as 420 I.P.C. nor there is no criminal intimidation on their part, since because on 16.11.2021, the 1^st petitioner was not present at Trippur, on the other hand, he was at Mumbai. So, there is no basic ingredient to proceed with the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioners. In support of petitioners contentions, the learned counsel relied on the ratio laid down in the authority reported in 2014 SCC Online Mad 124 in the case of Jayaprakah vs. The State , rep. by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai, wherein the Apex Court in para 9 held as follows :-

9. From the allegations made in the FIR, I find no material to invoke Section 406 IPC at all. and 420 cannot go together, because, essentially requires mutual trust, whereas, Section 420 requires an element of deception. It is for these reasons, I have to say that these two provisions cannot be simultaneously invoked in this case. In order to invoke , absolutely there is no material to show that the shares were entrusted by way of trust by the second respondent to the petitioner. Thus, I do not find even a prima facie allegation to invoke .”

The learned counsel also relied on the ratio laid down in the authority reported in (2011) 13 SCC 412 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 650 : 2011 SCC Online SC 1321 in the case of Thermax Limited and others vs. K.M.Johny and others , wherein the Apex Court in para 49 held as follows :-

“49. The entire analysis of the complaints with reference to the principles enunciated above and the ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC clearly show that there was inordinate delay and laches, the complaint itself is inherently improbable contains the flavour of civil nature and taking note of the closure of earlier three complaints that too after thorough investigation by the police, we are of the view that the Magistrate committed a grave error in calling for a report under Section 156(3) of the Code from the Crime Branch, Pu