The court emphasized that vague allegations lacking specific intent do not warrant criminal charges.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.490 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Judicial Magistrate Level, Krishnagiri.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. There are totally three accused in this case. The petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A3. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506 (ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

4. After completion of the investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.490 of 2022 and framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506 (ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, alleging that the petitioners belong to the said locality of Krishnagiri. In the course of time, the brother of the second respondent’s husband viz., Raja Ganapathy, was running a medical shop in the name and style of M/s.Sri Ganapathi Medicals and through third parties, the first petitioner/A1 came to know that the said medical shop was proposed to be sold, and therefore expressed his interest in purchasing the same from Raja Ganapathy. The first petitioner/A1 agreed to purchase the said medical shop for a total consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- from the said Raja Ganapathy and paid the said amount to him. However, after receipt of the amount, the possession of the medical shop was not handed over to the first petitioner. Despite repeated requests made by the first petitioner, the possession of the shop was not delivered to him.

5. Subsequently, when the petitioners demanded the return of the amount paid, a cheque for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- dated 18.03.2019 was issued in favour of Anbarasan, who is a friend of the petitioners. When the said cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. After causing statutory notice, the said Anbarasan filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in STC No.2019. After filing of the complaint by the said Anbarasan, the defacto complainant with the help of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Krishnagir, lodged a complaint before the first respondent police. Based on the said complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.295 of 2019. It is further alleged that the defacto complainant thereafter threatened the petitioners and the said Anbarasan to withdraw the complaint . Subsequently, another FIR was registered in Crime No.379 of 2019 for the very same cause of action for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and yet another FIR was registered in Crime No.381 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 387, 506(ii) of IPC and Section

4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

6. In view of the aforesaid allegations, the question that arises for consideration is whether any prima facie case has been made out as against the petitioners so as to attract the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. From the materials available on record, it is clear that the first petitioner had agreed to purchase the medical shop from the second respondent for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. The second respondent also agreed to the said amount and on receipt of the same from the first petitioner, t