Judgment :- This is a petition seeking for a direction to quash the proceedings in Crime No.2 of 2006 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tirupur Police Station, Coimbatore District. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners 1 and 2 are the Branch Heads of M/s.Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. and the third petitioner is its Vice President. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners are stock brokers and the second respondent/defacto complainant allowed them to trade in his account and in such circumstances, the defacto complainant sustained a loss of Rs.8.7 lakhs. It is further alleged that by threat, the petitioners have received the signature in the letter of confirmation from the defacto complainant and misusing the same, threatened for payment of money by creating certain forged entries in the business transactions. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that prior to the registration of this present F.I.R., an enquiry has been conducted by the Economic Offences Wing, Coimbatore and during the course of enquiry, an explanation has been offered and proceedings were dropped. It is submitted that prima facie it is alleged that certain forged documents had been created and signature had been obtained from the defacto complaint in a business transaction and further, the second respondent was threatened for payment of the same. But, actually a letter of undertaking has been given and only under such circumstances, a demand has been made. Even so, it is submitted that in a business transaction, it is upto the petitioners to take up the claim before the civil forum, if they are aggrieved. In such circumstances, anticipating some action against the defacto complainant, certain allegations have been made as if they are demanding to pay a sum of Rs.8.7 lakhs. It is stated that such demand had taken place during October and November, 2005, but the present F.I.R. has been taken on file during January, 2006. On perusal of the materials available on the first information report, the offence alleged is not substantiated and therefore, prays for quashing of the F.I.R. 4. It is stated that such demand had taken place during October and November, 2005, but the present F.I.R. has been taken on file during January, 2006. On perusal of the materials available on the first information report, the offence alleged is not substantiated and therefore, prays for quashing of the F.I.R. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the second respondent entrusted his Demat account and allowed the petitioners to trade for his shares in the share market and for such trades that has been done by the petitioners every day, it must be informed to the second respondent and only on instructions, such trade must be performed and it must be confirmed by the end of the day. It is submitted that erroneous procedures have been adopted and ultimately, they have shown a loss of Rs.8.7 lakhs in his account and demanded payment of the same and by threat, received the signature and only under such circumstances, the present complaint has been lodged before the first respondent police. 5. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made. 6. It is alleged that the petitioners, in a stock-broking business, were alleged to have shown some shortage and loss in the account of the defacto complainant and under such circumstances, they have demanded payment of the same. It is stated in the F.I.R. itself that by furnishing certain misleading information’s, the petitioners have received the signature in some papers and in the letter of confirmation and further, threatened for the payment of the dues. On perusal of the materials, I find that in a business transaction, a claim and counter-claim has been made and it has to be resolved by raising a civil dispute before an appropriate forum. Both the parties have indulged in business and dishonest intention at the inception cannot be inferred and under such circumstances, the offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be constituted. Only because of the dispute between the parties, allegation of intimidation has been stated in the F.I.R. I do not find any seriousness in such allegations in view of the belated lodging of the complaint. 7. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in allowing the complaint to be proceeded against the petitioner. Only because of the dispute between the parties, allegation of intimidation has been stated in the F.I.R. I do not find any seriousness in such allegations in view of the belated lodging of the complaint. 7. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in allowing the complaint to be proceeded against the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No.2 of 2006 on the file of Central Crime Branch, Tirupur Police Station, Coimbatore District, are liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. The petition is allowed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.