Criminal proceedings cannot be used to recover money from an unlawful contract.

COMMON ORDER

The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned FIR in Crime No.275 of

2023 on the file of the first respondent, which was registered for the offences under Section 120B, 406, 420 and 506(1) of IPC.

2. The allegation in the FIR is that the first and second accused had promised the defacto complainant and one Marichamy that they would obtain a Government job for them and stated that each of them have to pay Rs.10,00,000/-; that they had asked the defacto complainant and Marichamy to deposit the said money into the account of the third accused; that they did not obtain the job as promised; that when the defacto complainant sought for return of the money, they abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and also threatened him of dire consequences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent had made false allegations that the petitioners had promised to obtain a Government job; that there were other transactions between the petitioners and the defacto complainant; that those transactions were projected as a case of deceiving the defacto complainant and receiving money by promising to obtain a Government job; that the allegations would be squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Shrivas and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9800 of 2023 dated 19.02.2024, where, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the allegation stems out of an unlawful/illegal contract, then the criminal prosecution, which has been instituted only for recovering the tainted money, cannot be allowed and sought for quashing of the impugned FIR. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner/third accused had also filed a suit against the defacto complainant and one Marichamy for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's livelihood in the guise of collecting money.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent however would submit that the second respondent was deceived on the promise of obtaining a Government job and therefore, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed; that it is for the first respondent to conduct the investigation and sought for dismissal of the quash petitions.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent reiterated the above submission and stated that the investigation is still pending.

6. As stated earlier, the allegation is that the petitioners had received a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on the promise of obtaining Government job for the defacto complainant and his colleague Marichamy; and that between 24.03.2022 and 12.04.2022, the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, i.e., Rs.10,00,000/- each by the defacto complainant and Marichamy, was paid in 9 installments. It is seen that the petitioners have not disputed the receipt of money. However, it is the case of the petitioners that the said amount was received for publication of certain books; and that the allegation of deception is false. It is seen that that the third accused/petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.807 of 2024 had not made any representation to the defacto complainant. In fact, the third accused had admitted the receipt of money and would state that the said sum was given to the defacto complainant for a different purpose, namely, to publish certain books and since the defacto complainant was adopting unlawful means to recover the money, he had filed a suit before the Civil Civil Court at Chennai in O.S.No.6083 of 2023 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering in the petitioner's peaceful livelihood and not to collect money except by due process of law. This Court will certainly not go into those disputed facts