Judgment :- This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.553 of 2007 pending on the file of first respondent, and quash the same. 2. The averments found in the petition which are as follows:-The petitioners had not entered in to any money transaction with the defacto complainant/second respondent directly at any point of time; It transpires that the husband of the first petitioner Late.Gurusamy was having some money transaction with the defacto complainant/second respondent; The said Gurusamy had committed suicide at Thiruchendur on 21.07.2003 since he was cheated by some debtors; There is no specific allegations made against these petitioners in the complaint; The defacto complainants father Paulraj has filed a suit against the petitioners and 11 others in O.S.No.256 of 2003 for appointment of an administrator to take possession of properties belonging to the petitioners family numbering 15 and interim order has also been passed by the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur not to alienate the properties, excepting 6th suit item, which was a house constructed by the first petitioner in the year 1989 itself. The second respondent/defacto complainants wife Mrs.Uma Kaleeswari has also filed another suit in O.S.No.85 of 2006 on the file of the same Court against these petitioners; The first petitioner is a house wife who did not know about the business run by her husband and the second petitioner was a minor studying in Madras at the time of his fathers death on 21.07.2003; Due to worries, illness and mental tension, the first petitioner shifted her residence from Rajapalayam to Madurai in September,2003, after handing over about 26 properties, which stood in the name of the petitioners husband Late.Gurusamy to; a committee formed by the creditors of Late. Gurusamy through a General Power Deed dated 20.08.2003 to dispose of all the properties and distribute the respective shares amicably among all the creditors. Presently, the petitioners are facing about 30 civil suits in Sub Court Srivilliputhur. Though the transaction took place on 18.01.2003, the complaint has been filed only after a period of 4-1/2 years. Hence, on the ground of limitation and laches, the complaint is liable to be quashed. The transaction between the defacto complainant and Late. Gurusamy was purely civil in nature. Hence, the Criminal Court is not the appropriate forum for deciding the said issue. 3. Hence, on the ground of limitation and laches, the complaint is liable to be quashed. The transaction between the defacto complainant and Late. Gurusamy was purely civil in nature. Hence, the Criminal Court is not the appropriate forum for deciding the said issue. 3. In order to have a glimpse of the matter, a careful reading of the first information report lodged by the second respondent is inevitable. In his complaint, the second respondent has alleged that he was a subscriber to the chit by name Devi Finance run by one Gurusamy Chettiar in Rajapalayam and that he has also paid amount in the name of his wife Uma Kaleeswari, who was also the subscriber; he has also arranged his relatives Seenivasa Pillai, Murugesan and Azhagumani to be the subscribers in the said finance; on completion of the subscription in the year 2002 end, while all of them asked the Gurusamy Chettiar to pay the amount, he represented that all of his money was hoarded in some other real estate business and for the amount payable by him, he would execute a pronote and that after the properties were disposed of, he would pay the amount. His representation was convincing and believable; He had executed a pronote for Rs.50,000/-in his favour and another pronote for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of his wife and three other pronotes executed in the names of his relatives; on 21.07.2003, he died in Thiruchendur; the said Gurusamy Chettiar, out of the money earned from Devi Finance, purchased the immovable properties; after the death of said Gurusamy Chettiar, when the defacto complainant/second respondent asked his wife and son, they told that they would discharge the debts by selling the immovable properties; Believing their words, the complainant did not take any action, but he came to know that they executed a General power Deed for maintenance and disposal of the properties in favour of some persons who were close to them and as per the power deed, certain creditors have divided the properties among themselves; in the property, the house situated at Srivilliputhur Registration District, Virudhunagar District does not found place in the power deed and the same is now in the possession of the first accused, who settled the same in favour of her mother Ramalakshmi; the said house was constructed by Late. Gurusamy Chettiar using the funds siphoned from Devi Finance in the name of his wife. Hence, necessary action may be taken against both the accused who have cheated him. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.A.Kesavan would strenuously contend that there had been no money transaction between the petitioners and the second respondent at any point of time and since he has already instituted a suit in O.S.No.256 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, he could not have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and that it is a classical instance of abuse of process of law. 5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the second respondent Mr.T.Muruganantham would contend that the allegations found in the complaint are more specific and has prima facie proof to show the criminal intention on the part of the petitioners and right from the beginning they had been acting in such a way to hoodwink the petitioners and their continuous behaviour after the death of Gurusamy Chettiar would clearly show the criminal intention on their part of cheating. 6. In the backdrop of the registered power deed executed by both the petitioners dated 20.08.2003, the matter has to be analysed. They authorised ten persons to enter in to sale transactions on their behalf and to complete the sales. On 21.07.2003, Gurusamy Chettiar died and within a month from his death, the General Power of Attorney Deed came to be executed. A perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.256 of 2003 would reveal that the above said Power Deed was brought about by these petitioners for the benefit of some creditors giving up the other creditors found in the array of the plaintiff and defendants in the suit. On 21.07.2003 before the death, Gurusamy Chettiar had written a suicide note, which is addressed to his elder brother one Ganesan, in which he has stated that he reposed confidence on some persons, but he got disappointed. The General Power of Attorney executed on 20.08.2003 would show the criminal intention on the part of the petitioners, who have ignored the other creditors excepting the 10, whose names are found in the said deed. As per the contention of the petitioners, the power of attorney deed has not been executed to form a committee to dispose of the properties and to settle the outstanding payable to the creditors. As per the contention of the petitioners, the power of attorney deed has not been executed to form a committee to dispose of the properties and to settle the outstanding payable to the creditors. The tenor of the document is out and out a General Power of Attorney Deed alone and no scheme has been framed therein to benefit the creditors of Gurusamy Chettiar. 7. While the allegations in the complaint are scrutinised, it would specifically disclose the criminal intention on the part of the petitioners. It is stated therein that both the accused represented before the second respondent that they would settle the amount after disposing of a house. Even though Gurusamy Chettiar is no more and the plight of the petitioners is sympathetic, still they are bound to satisfy the creditors including the second respondent with the properties available with them. It appears that they have chosen 10 persons alone and authorised them to sell the properties which is glaring on the face of the record. Further, the execution of power of attorney deed in favour of some of the creditors alone has been clearly mentioned in the First Information Report. 8. On the factual background, there is nothing available in this petition to pass an order quashing the proceedings in Crime No.553 of 2007. In so far as the legal position is concerned, both the learned counsel would cite the authorities of Honourable Supreme Court to support of their respective contentions. The Honble Supreme Court in (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 188 (INDIAN OIL CORPN. VS. NEPC INDIA LTD, AND OTHERS) as restated the principles to be followed in the matter of quashing of Criminal Complaint which are as follows:- (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii)A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court, as when the criminal proceedings is found to have been initiated with male fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim produced the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out:(a) Purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a constractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceedings, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed of, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not." 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would garner support from a decision reported in (1998) 5 Supreme Court cases page No.694 (NAGESHWAR PRASAD SINGH ALIAS SINHA -VS- NARAYAN SINGH AND ANOTHER) in which it is held that in a matter with regard to agreement for sale of land, a civil dispute could not transformed into a criminal complaint and hence quashing such matter is very much necessary. The facts of the present case would also go to the fact that there are proceedings before the civil Court. However, the attitude of the petitioners would go a long way to show that from the inception they had been acting with the criminal intention to cheat the second respondent, which are evident from the allegations in the first information report and the power of attorney deed as well. Hence, the said decision would not come to the rescue of the petitioners. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also cited a decision reported in 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1048 (T.T.ANTONY -VS-STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS) in which Their Lordships were pleased to observe that after registering the FIR and commencing investigation, registering of second FIR or successive FIR in respect of the same incident and crime and making of fresh investigation pursuant thereto would be irregular which call for interference by High Court under Acts.226/227 or S.482 Cr.P.C. The facts of the present case, even though they had been another complaint and the same facts, it appears that there was no investigation on the earlier complaint and only upon the present complaint, the investigation has started so the petitioners’ side cannot take recourse to this decision. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the Supreme Court decision in (2004) 2 SCC 731 (K.C.BUILDERS AND ANOTHER -VS- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOEME TAX) in which, it is observed that existence of fraudulent intention at the time of making promise of accused to keep up the promise, is not sufficient to prove the existence of such intention right from the beginning. But the facts in this case in the hand are distinguishable. In the FIR not merely it is stated that the accused had failed to keep up their promise. But the allegations of the complainant is supported by another circumstance of execution of power of attorney deed. As adverted to supra, the power of attorney deed itself is sufficient to infer the malafide intention on the part of the petitioners. Hence, the principles contained in the said decisions are not applicable to the petitioners case. 12. But the allegations of the complainant is supported by another circumstance of execution of power of attorney deed. As adverted to supra, the power of attorney deed itself is sufficient to infer the malafide intention on the part of the petitioners. Hence, the principles contained in the said decisions are not applicable to the petitioners case. 12. While, any accused or aggrieved person comes before the High Court seeking a relief of quashing of Criminal proceedings, it is incumbent upon him to establish that there was malice on the part of the complainant and the allegations in the complaint are frivolous or with ulterior motive. Further it should also be shown that if the quashment is not ordered, it would lead to abuse of process of Court and complaint was made for wreaking vengeance. If those factors are absent in a Criminal proceedings, quashment of the proceedings could not be thought of, even though civil remedy was available for the second respondent. The creditor himself is no more and his legal heirs alone are available, still the attitude and behaviour of the accused have paved way for the complainant to initiate the criminal proceedings. There is nothing wrong in his action. Hence, I find no merit in the petition which suffers from dismissal. In fine, the petition is dismissed.