ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.03 of 2022 on the file of the first Respondent Police.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Criminal Original Petition Nos.18951 and 16899 of 2022 had already submitted his arguments. As per his submission, the basis for the complaint is a non enforceable contract under the Indian Contract Act. Further, in the contents of the First Information Report, it is found that various amounts had been transferred to the account of the accused from the account of the so called owner of the second Respondent. The Petitioner in Criminal Original Petition No.16899 of 2022 had furnished his Bank Statement, in which, nothing is found. The Petitioners in Criminal Original Petition Nos.18951 and 16899 of 2022 are aware that if the second Respondent/Defacto Complainant approaches the Civil Court, they are unable to get a decree based on the averments of the First Information Report. Only to cause harassment to the Petitioners in Criminal Original Petition Nos.18951 and 16899 of 2022 with ulterior motive, the second Respondent has claimed to be a Manager. The complaint had been lodged, based on which, the First Information Report had been registered.

3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Criminal Original Petition Nos.18951 and 16899 of 2022, that the occurrence had been taken place six months prior to the registration of the First Information Report. Usually, the case of this nature would attract the ingredients of offences under Sections 120(b) and 420 of IPC. Therefore, as per the averments in the First Information Report, this is a fit case that will not stand on its own leg. Hence, he seeks to quash the First Information Report.

4. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the ruling reported in MANU/SC/0591/2010 in the case of Kishan Singh (D) through Lrs Vs. Gurupal Singh and Ors. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“21. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR, the Complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the Complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the Complaint is always fatal. Vide: Sahib Singh Vs. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0821/1997:AIR 1997 SC 3247.

22................Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction on the Criminal Court. The Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the Court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case...........”

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the First Information Report is not an encyclopedia. He would also submit that on earlier occasion, the Defacto Complainant/Second Respondent had approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P(MD).No.13920 of 2022, in which, the learned Single Judge (Honourable Mr.Justice V.Sivagnanam) had passed the orders dated 02.08.2022 and directed the first Respondent to complete the investigation and file a final report within a reasonable period of two months.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court to the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC and the complaint registered under Section 415 of IPC squarely attracts to the facts of the pending case before this Court. Further, he would submit that the learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the Investigation Officer to complete the