COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.35/15 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam and to quash the same insofar as petitioners/A1, A2, A3 and A6 are concerned.

2. The complaint in C.C,No.35 of 2015 has been filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 417 and 420 of IPC. The allegations made in the complaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The respondent/defacto complainant is running a business of Civil Engineering Software Equipments and Machineries under the name and style of “C CAD Systems”. It is dealing with all the civil engineering testing machineries. First Accused (A1) is a polytechnic college, second accused (A2) is its Principal, third accused (A3) is its Secretary. Second and third accused are jointly responsible for the affairs of management and incharge of officers of first accused. Fourth accused (A4) is a senior lecturer in Civil Department. Fifth accused (A5) is Head of the Department and the Sixth accused is a Public Relation Officer in the first accused. Fourth accused contacted the respondent for supply of Torsion Testing Machine 20kg and a microprocessor based UTM 40 Ton capacity machine for their institution. On 08.05.2010, respondent gave a proposal offer to the first accused. Accused 2 to 6 personally called the respondent for final discussion for the purchase of machineries and on 17.12.2020, after elaborate discussion, accused 2 to 6 agreed to purchase the machineries from the complainant for Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only). On 18.12.2010, third accused sent a purchase order and on 24.12.2010, he deposited a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as advance and assured to pay the balance amount later. Complainant sent machine foundation drawings to the first accused in first week of January 2011, to execute the foundation of machines. Accused 2 to 6 failed to execute the machine foundation as per the drawing till March 2011. Complainant supplied the first machinery ie., Torsion testing machine 20kg to the first accused and that was acknowledged on 02.03.2011. Microprocessor based UTM 40 (HEICO brand) was supplied to the first accused and acknowledged on 25.05.2011. Even after receiving the machineries, accused 2 to 6 have not taken steps to make foundation to install the machineries. A letter dated 17.06.2011 was sent making unnecessary new terms that accused would pay the balance amount only after completion of installation of machineries, calibration and drawing. That was replied by the complainant on 28.06.2011, denying new terms with the advise to follow the existing terms in the purchase order. Complainant sent his personal wooden tool box containing 15 items of tools, along with the machineries, that was acknowledged by A4 and A5. On 06.07.2011, on completion of installation of machineries, he tried to take his tools and accessories with him. Accused 3 to 6 jointly, in connivance, against the complainant, forced and restrained the complainant from taking his belongings. He was unnecessarily compelled to wait in the premises of A1 till 10.30p.m. Action of all the accused are against the interest of complainant. Accused have no right to retain the tools and accessories in the premises of first accused for more than past two years. Complainant sent a letter on 18.07.2011 and that was received by the accused on 21.07.2011. Without returning the tools and accessories, accused just sent the cheque for Rs.4,50,000/-. On 03.08.2011, complainant sent a notice calling the accused to return the tools and accessories and to settle the complainant's claim in full. He returned the cheque for Rs.4,50,000/-. On 13.09.2011, A2 and A3 sent a reply claiming that tools are attached with machineries. Later, they contacted the complainant and negotiated for amicable settlement and agreed to return back the complainant's things, but they have not done so. Therefore, the complaint.

3. After recording the sworn statement of complain