Judgment : The petitioners / accused 1 to 3 and 5 have filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in C.C.No.72 of 2004 from the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act, 1997, Chennai and quash the same in respect of the petitioners. 2. The prosecution case leading is as follows: One Maheswari, Wife of Balakrishnan, defacto complainant, lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Coimbatore/respondent herein, stating that the petitioners/ accused persons are partners and established a finance Company, namely, V.S.C.K. Financiers. The said company promised to give higher rate of interest on fixed deposits. Believing the same, about 38 persons, deposited various amount with the petitioners finance company, on various dates. As such, the finance company had received Rs.19,40,000/- on various dates during the period from 1994 to 2002. The said amount was not repaid to the depositors, with accrued interest, as promised. As such, the petitioners misappropriated the said amount and caused a loss to the depositors wilfully. Hence, the respondent / complainant registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2003. After investigation and recording statements of witnesses and examination of statement of accounts, the respondent filed charge sheet before the Special Court. The Special Court has taken the case on his file as C.C.No.72 of 2004 and issued summons to the petitioners herein. 3. The petitioners contended in their petition that the respondent has filed a case against them and one Chinna kittusamy on the allegation that they have committed offence under Section 5 of TNPID Act. The petitioners further contended that the first petitioner is a finance company and the other petitioners are partners of the said company. The company received deposits from the public, and in turn they were lending money to business people. The borrowers of money from the finance company failed to pay the money back and so the company was not in a position to return the money to the depositors. The petitioners contended that about Rs.55 lakhs was due to the company from the borrowers, and only about Rs.24 lakhs is due as per the respondents allegation. Further, the petitioners stated that the amount due to some depositors has been settled with the permission of Special Court, ie., a sum of Rs.7,25,000/-. The petitioners contended that about Rs.55 lakhs was due to the company from the borrowers, and only about Rs.24 lakhs is due as per the respondents allegation. Further, the petitioners stated that the amount due to some depositors has been settled with the permission of Special Court, ie., a sum of Rs.7,25,000/-. Further, the second petitioner filed a petition before the Special Court and sought direction from the Court for attachment and sale of properties from the borrowers. The learned Special Judge was pleased to allow the application on 12.05.2005. Since, the attachment order is in force against the borrowers, the matter is pending. The petitioners companys liability is only Rs.16,50,000/-, but dues receivable to the company is Rs.55 lakhs. 4. Further, the petitioners submitted that the continuation of the proceedings before the Special Court is a clear abuse of the process of law. Hence, the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings. 5. The learned counsels appeared for either side well argued for their respective parties. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the respondent, after receiving the complaint from the defacto complainant, had registered a criminal case; further the respondent proceeded with the matter in accordance with law and supporting the prosecution case, 7 documents and 23 witnesses and statement of accounts etc., were mentioned. The petitioners also have not disputed the case, but the petitioners have only disclosed that outstanding dues receivable by the company is higher than the liability of the company. In any event, there is no discrepancy in the complaint. 7. Hence, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings in C.C.No.72 of 2004 on the file of Special Court under TNPID Act, 1997, Chennai. So, the Criminal Original Petition has got to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.