ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.357 of 2018, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur.

2. The respondent initially gave a police complaint based on which Crime No.378 of 2013 was registered by the Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station on 20.08.2013 for various offences. The allegation that was made by the respondent was that the petitioners and the respondent are partners in a Finance Company and the first petitioner compelled the respondent to make false accounts and when the respondent refused, he was attacked. Thereafter, the respondent approached the petitioners seeking for rendition of account and demanding his share in the profit and the same was not given and the respondent was threatened. It is under these circumstances, the police complaint came to be given by the respondent. The police conducted an investigation and filed a closure report on 13.10.2017 as “mistake of fact”.

3. While so, the respondent based on the very same set of allegations, filed a private complaint before the Court below and the Court below straightaway took cognizance of the private complaint and issued process to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present quash petition has been filed.

4. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and carefully went through the materials placed before this Court. 5. The issue that is involved in the present Criminal Original Petition is squarely covered by the earlier order passed by this Court, dated 27.11.2019 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.9812 of 2017 (Ganesan and others vs.

Ganatpahy). The relevant portions in the order are extracted hereunder:

“6. In this case, it is admitted that the facts of the case,which became a subject matter of investigation by the Police inCrime No.241 of 2005 and the facts of the case which form part ofthe private complaint, are one and the same. The respondent had initially given a Police complaint and the concerned Police after a detailed investigation have filed a closure report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. A notice was issued to the respondent and since the respondent did not file a protest petition, the learned Judicial Magistrate took the closure report on file and closed the case. This order remains unchallenged.

7. The respondent has parallely filed a private complaint before the very same Court and the Court has taken cognizance of the same. Even without going into the facts of the present case, it must be seen as to whether such a private complaint is maintainable.

8. At this juncture, it will be relevant to rely upon a judgment of this Court in the case of A.Krishna Rao Vs, L.S.Kumar cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reported in 1998 (I) CTC 329. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder:

“In the present case, the police have filed the referred charge sheet as 'mistake of fact' it, seems the Magistrate has accepted the R.C.S. It is not the case of the respondent herein that the Magistrate has not accepted the R.C.s. filed by the police. In such circumstances, when the Magistrate has accepted the R.C.S. the second complaint should be filed only after setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the referred chargesheet. However, the respondent herein has not taken any such action and instead had filed a second complaint which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. It has been held in the above decisions that taking cognizance in the second complaint, makes the same not maintainable. I have no hesitation to follow the said view, and as such it has to be held that the second complaint which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Wallajapet, in CC No.274 of 1994 is not maintainable and the proceedings have to be quashed. “

9. One more judgment of this Court to which reliance can be placed is the case of Dr.Parthasarathy Vs.

Rukmani and another reported in CDJ 2016 MHC

009: