JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners are the Accused No.1 to 4 in Crime Nos. 600 and 601 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent. The second respondent viz.,Mr.Sakthi Chidambaram, Proprietor: Cinema Paradise is the defacto complainant in Crime No.600 of 2012 and Mr.Naresh Babu, Proprietor: Gopikrishnan Paradise is the defacto complainant in Crime No. 601 of 2012. 2. The Complaint in Crime No.600/2012 was given on 6.12.2012 at 6.00 P.M. by Mr.Sakthi Chidambaram, Proprietor, Cinema Paradise, Chennai-93, before the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, IX A Team EDF Wing II, Egmore, Chennai against the Chairman and respective Managers of Sun TV and Sun Pictures. In the said complaint, he has stated that he is a Producer cum Director of Tamil films for the past 20 years and he is an Executive Member of the Film Producers Association. The defacto complainant further stated that in the year 2010, he has entered into an agreement with one Ramesh Babu for purchase of the Tamil Film by name ?Kavalan? acted by Vijay and Asin for a sum of Rs.41 Crores. He has also entered into an MOU with Sun T.V for the sale of satellite rights for a sale consideration of Rs.5.5 Crores-and for which an advance of Rs.2.75 Crores has been received by him from Sun T.V. by way of cheque. The remaining amount of Rs.2.75 Crores has not been paid to him by Sun T.V. Even after the release of the movie, it has been postponing the payment and when he requested the payment, Accused No.4 demanded Rs.50 lakhs as commission for the collection of the balance amount. Since the defacto complainant has refused to give commission to Accused No.4, the accused has dragged him to Court. The other allegation in the said complaint is that the Sun Pictures had given promise to give the distribution rights of Enthiran moovie for Chengleput area, for which he has borrowed a sum of Rs.4 Crores from various persons and paid the same to Sun Pictures by way of cash. But the Sun Pictures had sold the entire distribution rights to Gemeni Lab and on hearing this the defacto complainant demanded the return of money paid by him and at that time Sun Pictures had agreed to return the amount. Thereafter, on negotiations with Gemini Lab, he was allowed to release the moovie in some theatres at Chengalpatu area. But the Sun Pictures had sold the entire distribution rights to Gemeni Lab and on hearing this the defacto complainant demanded the return of money paid by him and at that time Sun Pictures had agreed to return the amount. Thereafter, on negotiations with Gemini Lab, he was allowed to release the moovie in some theatres at Chengalpatu area. Whereas, the Sun Pictures have not returned the amount of Rs.4.00 Crores paid by the defacto complainant and the balance amount due of 2.75 Crores towards the satellite rights of Kavalan movie. Because of the attitude shown by the above said accused, the amount borrowed and invested by him has been stagnated by the Sun TV & Sun Pictures and he become penniless man. Under this juncture, on 30.11.2012 at 1.00 O’ Clock, the defacto complainant visited the office of the Sun T.V. situated at Maran Towers at MRC Nagar, Chennai and requested for repayment of Rs.6.75 Crores due and payable by the accused. But they refused to repay the money. At that time one employee of the Sun TV informed him that Accused No.2 has asked the defacto complainant to come over to the car park. At that time all the three accused came there, abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and Accused No.2 to 4 threatened him with dire consequences and drove him away. He came out with fear of his life and thereafter, he gave a complaint and FIR was registered at 6.00 p.m on 06.12.2012 by the Central Crime Branch Crime No.600/2012 for the alleged offence under Sections 294, 352 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. The Complaint in Crime No.601/2012 was given by Mr.Naresh Babu, Proprietor, Gopikrishna Paradise, Chennai. In the complaint he has stated that he is the lessee of Gopikrishna Theatre belongs to one Jayaraman Naidu from whom he has taken lease for five years and he has been screening movies right from December, 2009 and he is a Distributor of Tamil films. Further the defacto complainant had paid a sum of Rs.25 lakhs as an advance to Mr.Karthik, who is the Accountant of M/s Sun Pictures, for the distribution and screening of the tamil film VETTAIKARAN in his theatre. He has demanded receipt for the payment of Rs.25 lakhs paid by him. But the Sun Pictures refused to issue receipt by saying that in such big company receipt could not be issued. He has demanded receipt for the payment of Rs.25 lakhs paid by him. But the Sun Pictures refused to issue receipt by saying that in such big company receipt could not be issued. Therefore, he is neither having any agreement nor having any receipt for the payment made by him. Even after the release the said tamil movie Vettaikaran got the collection of Rs.10.00 lakhs only. Out of which the defacto complainant deducted Rs.5.00 lakhs which has to be paid to Sun Pictures and demanded the Sun Pictures to repay the remaining advance amount of Rs.20 lakhs. On 28.11.2012 when the defacto complainant approached the accused at their office to request to repay the balance amount of Rs.20 lakhs. At that time the accused asked him to not press the complaint given by him before the Distributors’ Association and thereafter they will repay the amount due and payable to him. Further, the accused abused him with filthy languages and threatened him with dire consequences. Then he left from the place and gave a complaint before the before the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, IX A Team EDF Wing II, Egmore, Chennai. On the basis of the said complaint FIR was registered in Central Crime Branch Crime No.601/2012 for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 294, 352 and 502(ii) IPC. 4. The petitioners have come forward with the present quash petitions to quash the said complaints against them. 5. Heard Mr.P.S.Raman learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/Accused No. 1, 2 and 4 in Crl.O.P.Nos.30666, 30667, 30668, 30669, 30671 and 30672 of 2012 and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Accused No.3 in Crl.O.P.Nos. 30665 and 30672 of 2012 and Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr.C.Emalias, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), appearing for the first respondent and Mr.D.Selvam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant and perused the materials placed on record. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has put forth three limbs of arguments. The first limb of argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the defacto complainant has stated in the complaint that he has paid a sum of Rs.4.00 Crores by cash. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has put forth three limbs of arguments. The first limb of argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the defacto complainant has stated in the complaint that he has paid a sum of Rs.4.00 Crores by cash. Now he tried to improve his case by producing a copy of remittance challan before this Court for Rs.96.00 lakhs made by Dev Agencies on 17.9.2010 in the name of the Sun Pictures without producing the same before the police and in this regard there is no 161 statement. It is pertinent to note that, it is not in his name, which is in the name of a third party. Therefore, on that basis, this Court can come to the conclusion that amount has been paid to Sun Pictures, whereas film rights has not been given to the defacto complainant. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that they have made several transactions with Dev Agencies and one such remittance challan has been utilised which according to him is not connected with the present complaint against the present petitioners. Hence, he prays that the present complaint against the petitions have to be quashed. 7. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that on an earlier occasion for the same relief of refund of Rs.4.00 Crores the defacto complainant has given a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai, against one Hansraj Saxena and in that case the accused has moved anticipatory bail before the Princiapl Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.10161 of 2011 and he has obtained an order of anticipatory bail. Once again the defacto complainant has given a complaint against the petitioners for the same relief of refund of Rs.4.00 Crores by hoping the political change. Hence, he prays that the complaint against the petitioners has to be quashed. 8. The third limb of argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that regarding the so called occurrence is concerned entire building was in the surveillance camera, there is no such impression has been noticed that he has entered into the office of the Sun TV and further on the date of occurrence Accused No.3 was flying for Colombo and at 3.00 O’ clock on 30.11.2012 he reached Colombo Airport. On the same day at 10.30 A.M. the defacto complainant moved lunch motion before the Division Bench of this Court and he was very well present in the Court at 2.15 P.M. and he was prosecuting the case before the Division Bench of this Court in OSA No.424 of 2012. Under such circumstances, no such occurrence would have been taken place as alleged in the complaint. Even in the complaint the allegation of threat itself would not have been correct for which the petitioners need not be compelled to undergo ordeal of trial before the Judicial Magistrate. Hence, he prays that the complaint against the petitioners has to be quashed. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant contended that the Satellite rights of KAVALAN moovie was sold to M/s Sun TV for a value of Rs.5.5 Crores and an advance amount of Rs.2.75 Crores was paid to him by M/s Sun TV and the remaining amount of Rs.2.75 Crores has not been paid by them as agreed by them in the agreement. On the other hand the fourth accused had demanded commission for clearing the second respondent's payment. Furthermore, on the promise of giving distribution rights of tamil film ENTHIRAN for the Chengalpattu area, the accused had received a sum of Rs.4.00 Crores from the defacto complainant, but they had sold the entire rights to yet another firm and enriched themselves with the unlawful gain, making the defacto complainant to suffer unlawful loss, thus the defacto complainant was cheated by the accused to the tune of Rs.6.75 Crores. In furtherance on 30.11.2012 when the defacto complainant had been to the car parking of Sun TV he was literally abused in filthy language by A2 to A4 and A4 had further assaulted the defacto complainant, A2 and A3 had threatened him that they would set fire to entire family of the defacto complainant and would kill him by hitting through car. Hence, he prays that the petitions have to be dismissed. 10. It is not in dispute that the first accused is the Chairman of M/s Sun TV and the other accused are managers in the said firm. Hence, he prays that the petitions have to be dismissed. 10. It is not in dispute that the first accused is the Chairman of M/s Sun TV and the other accused are managers in the said firm. It is also not in dispute that the defacto complainant had sold the satellite rights of the tamil film KAVALAN to M/s Sun TV for sale consideration of Rs.5.5 Crores for which he has received an advance of Rs.2.75 Crores and the remaining sum of Rs.2.75 was agreed to be paid later. For non payment of Rs.2.75 Crores the defacto complainant gave a complaint to the before the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, IX A Team EDF Wing II, Egmore, Chennai, in which M.V.R.S.Prasath Colour Laboratories is a party. 11. It is also not in dispute that Sun TV Network Limited has filed a civil suit in C.S.No.402 of 2011 on the file of this Court against the defacto complainant, Ekaveera Creations and Prasad Film Laboratories for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the rights of the applicant in the copyright of the film KAVALAN regarding the exclusive copyright in respect of Satellite Television Broadcast, Direct to Home Broadcast, Direct Satellite Service, Terrestrial Television Broadcast and all other rights connected therewith including exhibition of the said picture by means of wireless diffusion and by wire for communication to the public through television broadcast for the entire world and the same is pending. The learned single Judge of this Court has passed a conditional order dated 14.6.2011 in O.A.No.505 of 2011 in C.S.No.402 of 2011. It is relevant to extract the operative portion of the said order which runs as hereunder:- ‘That the applicant/plaintiff herein, do deposit the balance sale consideration of a sum of Rs.2,75,00,000/- in to this court to the credit of the suit in favour of the Registrar General of this court in any one of the Nationalized Banks within a period of one week from this date (i.e.) on or before 21.06.2011. 2. That subject to the condition mentioned in clause (1) supra, (1) Cinema Paradise rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Sakthi Chidambaram, (2) Ekaveera Creations rep. By its Proprietor Mr.C.Romesh Babu, and (3) Prasad Film Laboratories Proprietor Prasad Productions (P) Ltd., rep. 2. That subject to the condition mentioned in clause (1) supra, (1) Cinema Paradise rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Sakthi Chidambaram, (2) Ekaveera Creations rep. By its Proprietor Mr.C.Romesh Babu, and (3) Prasad Film Laboratories Proprietor Prasad Productions (P) Ltd., rep. By its Business Head, the respondents herein their men, agent, servants or anybody claiming through or under them be and are hereby restrained from in any manner interfering with the rights of the applicant in the copyright of the film ‘KAVALAN’ regarding the exclusive copyright in respect of Satellite Television Broadcast, Direct to Home Broadcast, Direct Satellite Service, Terrestrial Television Broadcast and all other rights connected therewith including exhibition of the said picture by means of wireless diffusion and by wire for communication to the public through television broadcast for the entire world.” 12. Pursuant to the said order, the first accused has deposited a sum of Rs.2.75 Crores and on application by Mr.M.V.R.S Prasad, in A.No.4508 of 2011, the learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 26.11.2012 passed the following order: “50. In view of the stand taken by the respective parties, the applications are disposed of as under: (1) That the injunction order passed by this Court in O.A.No. 588 of 2012 shall stand vacated, on release of a sum of Rs.2,42,05,500/- by this Court out of the amount deposited by respondent No.1 in C.S.No.402 of 2011; (2) A.No.4508 of 2011 in C.S.No.402 of 2011 for permission to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,42,05,500/- is allowed. The Registry is directed to release this amount to Mr.M.V.R.S.Prasad out of the amount deposited by Sun TV Network in C.S.No.402 of 2011. (3) A.No.4170 of 2012 in C.S.No.483 of 2012 filed by the respondent No.1 for vacation of interim injunction is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. (4) A.No.2517 of 2012 in C.S.No.402 of 2011 is ordered to be dismissed, in view of the admission by the applicant/respondent No.2, that respondent No.1 has deposited the full consideration amount in terms of the agreement, and that the amount is due and payable to the applicant/plaintiff in C.S.No.483 of 2012. (5) O.A.No.505 of 2011 in C.S.No.402 of 2011-the injunction order granted in favour of respondent No.1 is made absolute, pending disposal of the suit.” Against which the present defacto complainant has preferred an appeal in O.S.A.No.424 of 2012 and the same is pending. 13. (5) O.A.No.505 of 2011 in C.S.No.402 of 2011-the injunction order granted in favour of respondent No.1 is made absolute, pending disposal of the suit.” Against which the present defacto complainant has preferred an appeal in O.S.A.No.424 of 2012 and the same is pending. 13. From the above said facts it is very clear that the defacto complainant had entered into an agreement with the accused for the sale of satellite rights for Rs.5.5 Crores at that time he has received Rs.2.75 Crores from Sun TV towards advance and for nonpayment of the remaining amount of Rs.2.75 Crores he has given a complaint. From the perusal of the records and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is found that already Civil Court has seized of the matter and already an interim order was passed by the learned single judge of this Court on 14.6.2011, on condition that the Sun TV Network Limited deposits a sum of Rs.2.75 Crores to the credit of the suit, in favour of the Registrar General, in any of the Nationalised Bank, within a period of one week. Thereafter, an order dated 18.7.2011 in O.A.No.505 of 2011 in C.S.No.402 of 2011 was also passed by the learned single Judge. It is relevant to extract Paragraph 2 of the said order, which runs as hereunder:- “2. In the light of the admitted position that out of the consideration of Rs.5.50 Crores fixed under the agreement between the parties, the first payment of Rs.2.75 Crores was also made after deducting TDS, there is no reason as to why the same should not be followed. Therefore, the Registry shall accept the cheque deposited by the plaintiff, for the amount representing the amount directed to be deposited, after deducting TDS. In other words, the deposit of the amount, after deducting TDS, shall be taken as compliance with the conditional order passed.” 14. As against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge the present defacto complainant has preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.424 of 2012, in the appeal also the order of the learned single Judge was confirmed. In pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge, the accused have deposited a sum of Rs.2.75 Crores to the credit of the suit. In pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge, the accused have deposited a sum of Rs.2.75 Crores to the credit of the suit. In turn as per the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, Prasad Colour Lab has withdrawn the amount from the Court. Therefore, no such amount is due from the accused to the complainant. Of course, it is a matter of civil transaction and the Civil Court has already seized of the matter. Under such circumstances after very long time, the present complaint has been given against the accused . As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thermax Limited and others vs. K.M.Johny and others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 450 : (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 412 and it is useful to extract the relevant portion which runs as follows:- "If there is a flavour of civil nature, the same cannot be agitated in the form of criminal proceeding. If there is huge delay and in order to avoid the period of limitation, it cannot be resorted to as a criminal proceeding. The essential ingredient for an offence under Section 420 IPC, is that there has to be dishonest intention to deceive another person. The relevant allegations in the complaint and perusal of the same clearly shows that no such dishonest intention can be seen or even inferred inasmuch as the entire dispute pertains to contractual obligations between the parties. Since the very ingredients of Section 420 are not attracted, the prosecution initiated is wholly untenable. Even if we admit that allegations in the complaint do make out a dispute, still it ought to be considered that the same is merely a breach of contract and the same cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction. Inasmuch as there are number of documents to show that the appellant Company had acted in terms of the agreement and in a bona fide manner, it cannot be said that the act of the appellant Company amounts to a breach of contract. " As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, even if the flavour of civil nature is available this Court can quash the proceedings. " As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, even if the flavour of civil nature is available this Court can quash the proceedings. In this case already it has been demonstrated that a case is pending in both the Courts. In such circumstances, I am of the view the first allegation against the accused will not hold good and it is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 15. The second allegation in the complaint made by the defacto complainant in Crime No.600 of 2012 is for getting distribution rights of ‘Enthiran" moovie for the Chengalpattu area, he has paid Rs.4.00 Crores to Sun Pictures by way of cash. But the Sun Pictures had given the entire rights of "Enthiran" moovie to Gemeni Colour Lab. When the defacto complainant demanded the amount paid by him, the accused refused to return the amount. On 30.11.2012 the defacto complainant was at the office of the Sun TV, and requested the accused to return the amount paid by him, he was asked to come over to the car parking and abused the defacto complainant with filthy languages and threatened him with dire consequences. On that basis, he has given the complaint. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant as well as the learned Advocate General appearing for the first respondent represent that these are the matters to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. Hence, they pray that the petitions have to be dismissed. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the defacto complainant has already given a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai, against one Hansraj Saxena the Executive of the Blue Sky Cinemas stating that the said company is the benami of the Sun TV and he had entered into an agreement with Hansraj Saxena and paid Rs. 4.00 Crores for the right of screening the tamil moovie ‘Enthiran’ in 8 theaters at Chengalpattu area. Whereas, the distribution right to screen the said moovie in 7 theatres alone has been given to him. Hence, he demanded the return back the money, which has been refused by Hansraj Saxena. Hence, a complaint has been given by the present defacto complainant against one Hansraj Saxena. Whereas, the distribution right to screen the said moovie in 7 theatres alone has been given to him. Hence, he demanded the return back the money, which has been refused by Hansraj Saxena. Hence, a complaint has been given by the present defacto complainant against one Hansraj Saxena. Again the defacto complainant has come forward with the present complaint against the present accused also for the second time regarding the same allegation of criminal intimidation and the same was received by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, IX A Team EDF Wing II, Egmore, Chennai FIR case was registered in Crime No.600/2012. Hence, he prays that the complaint against the petitioners has to be quashed. 18. From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the defacto complainant has already given a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai, against one Hansraj Saxena the Executive of the Blue Sky Cinemas. Even in that complaint also the defacto complainant has used the same wording such as the accused abused him with filthy languages and threatened him with dire consequences. It is relevant to extract the relevant portion of the said complaint which runs as hereunder:- “TAMIL” The said complaint was received by the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai. Whereas Hansranj Saxena has moved anticipatory bail before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and he was released on anticipatory bail by Mr.P.Devadoss, the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai (as he then was) as against the same charges. It is relevant to extract the operative portion the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.10161 of 2011 dated 27.9.2011, which runs as hereunder:- “8. Defacto complainant alleges that he entered into business dealing for the release of the said film in 8 theatres in Chengalpatu area and the business was concluded for Rs.4 Crores and he paid the amount to Suresh, owner of ‘Blue Sky’, who is related to petitioner. The film was not given in Vidhya Theatre in Tambaram, he suffered heavy loss. His loss is Rs. 1 Crore and 60 lakhs. When he asked the money, he was criminally intimidated by the petitioner and his friends.” Hence, I am of the view that the present complaint given by the defacto complainant against the present petitioners on the same allegations is only an afterthought. 19. His loss is Rs. 1 Crore and 60 lakhs. When he asked the money, he was criminally intimidated by the petitioner and his friends.” Hence, I am of the view that the present complaint given by the defacto complainant against the present petitioners on the same allegations is only an afterthought. 19. From the perusal of the typed set it is seen even though the defacto complainant has produced a remittance challan showing the remittance of Rs.96 lakhs in the name of the Sun Pictures, at the time of investigation, no such document has been produced by the defacto complainant or seized by the Investigating Officer in this regard. In the complaint the defacto complainant has specifically stated that: “TAMIL” He never stated in the complaint that 96 lakhs amount has been paid through ECS Account. In such circumstances, the document cannot be relied on and it has to be rejected. 20. Even though it has been contended that surveillance camera has been available in the place of occurrence, no such investigation has been conducted, the accused themselves have produced cassettes before the police officer. Even thereafter, the Investigating Officer has not enquired into in this regard. 21. From the perusal of the documents produced by the defacto complainant it is seen that nothing has been whispered against the Accused No.1 regarding the role played by him in the commission of the offence. Regarding Accused No.3 is concerned, on the date of occurrence at 3.00 p.m. he was at Colombo as seen from the entries made in the passport by the Colombo Embassy. As per the complaint Accused No.2 and 4 alone have been left out. 22. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners categorically stated that on 30.11.2012, the defacto complainant has moved lunch motion at 10.30 A.M. and it has been granted by the Division Bench of this Court consists of Justice R.Banumathi and Justice K.K.Sasidharan and the matter was taken up by 2.15 p.m. and at that time the defacto complainant was also present. But no such complaint has been made by him with regard to the said occurrence. As per the copies of statement recorded under Section 161 it is seen that the defacto complainant has stated that he was pushed out by the accused after exchange of words in the Sun TV office at MRC Nagar. But no such complaint has been made by him with regard to the said occurrence. As per the copies of statement recorded under Section 161 it is seen that the defacto complainant has stated that he was pushed out by the accused after exchange of words in the Sun TV office at MRC Nagar. Since Blood Pressure was raised the defacto complainant has directly gone to his house. Whereas he was present before the Division Bench of this Court when the case was taken up at 2.15 P.M. by the Division Bench of this Court. This fact has not been denied by the defacto complainant. 23. From the reading of the complaint in Crime No.601 of 2012 which was given by one Naresh Babu, it reveals that he is the leaseholder of Gopikrishna Theatre and he has paid Rs.25 lakhs in cash as an advance to Sun Pictures and got the distribution and screening rights of the tamil moovie Vettaikaran in his theatre and the said moovie got the collection of Rs.10.00 lakhs only. Out of which Rs.5.00 lakhs has to be paid to Sun Pictures and he demanded the Sun Pictures to repay the remaining advance amount of Rs.20 lakhs. The Accused refused to repay the remaining advance amount to him and they had criminally intimidiated him with dire consequences. For which he has given the said complaint. Since there is no whisper in the said complaint about the written agreement between the defacto complainant and the accused regarding the distribution and screening rights of the tamil moovie Vettaikaran and regarding the payment of advance of Rs.25 lakhs by the defacto complainant where is the question of demanding the balance amount of Rs.20 lakhs from the accused. If at all the said transaction between them is true, there must be an agreement in writing. No such document has been produced by the defacto complainant till the date complaint i.e. 6.12.2012. Even the date of payment has not been mentioned in the complaint. No receipt has been produced by the complainant for payment of advance of Rs.25 lakhs to the accused. On what basis the accused is bound to repay the amount was also not mentioned in the complaint. No such account has been produced before the investigating agency to substantiate the payment of Rs.25 lakhs made by him to the accused. 24. No receipt has been produced by the complainant for payment of advance of Rs.25 lakhs to the accused. On what basis the accused is bound to repay the amount was also not mentioned in the complaint. No such account has been produced before the investigating agency to substantiate the payment of Rs.25 lakhs made by him to the accused. 24. On a perusal of the records it is seen that the complaint in Crime No.600 of 2012 has been given against the present accused for return of the balance amount of 2.75 Crores due and payable to him regarding the satellite rights of Kavalan moovie for which a civil suit in C.S.No.402 of 2012 filed by Sun TV Network Limited is pending before this Court. The next allegation in the said complaint is regarding the return of Rs.4.00 Crores paid by him to the accused regarding the distribution rights of Enthiran moovie for the Chengalpattu area. Whereas, a similar complaint has been given by the defacto complainant against one Hansraj Saxena the Executive of Blue Sky Cinemas for the same relief of refund of Rs.4.00 Crores and in the said case he has been released on anticipatory bail by the Prinncipal Sessions Judge, Chennai. Now, again the defacto complainant has come forward with the second complaint against the present petitioners herein for the same relief of refund of Rs.4.00 Crores under the false hope of political changes. 25. In so far as the other complaint in Crime No.601 of 2012 filed by one Naresh Babu, against the present accused for return of Rs.25 lakhs alleged to have paid by him for the distribution and screening of the tamil film VETTAIKARAN in his theatre, there is no ioto of documentary evidence such as written agreement or receipt for payment of Rs.25 lakhs to substantiate the said payment. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that all these aspects can be decided only by a civil forum, it cannot be considered by way of criminal proceedings. 26. Further, it is pertinent to note that in both the complaints the same wordings of criminal intimidation against A1 to A4 have been find place. Further, the allegation against the remaining Accused No. 2 to 4 are also cannot be correct one. 26. Further, it is pertinent to note that in both the complaints the same wordings of criminal intimidation against A1 to A4 have been find place. Further, the allegation against the remaining Accused No. 2 to 4 are also cannot be correct one. The defacto complainant could not be present at the Sun TV office at MRC Nagar, Chennai at 1.00 p.m. on 30.11.2011 since on that day lunch motion for O.S.A.No.424 of 2012 was moved by him and it was granted by this Court and he was present before the Division Bench of this Court at 2.15 p.m. when the matter was taken up and heard elaborately. Hence, I am of the view that there is no proof or truch in the complaint. Further, it is seen that the complaint is for the return of money which is civil in nature and on this score, in such a vague complaint without any ioto of proof or truth the accused need not be compelled to undergo ordeal of trial before the trial Court. Hence, both the complaints are liable to be quashed. 27. All the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed.Both thecomplaints in Crime No.600 of 2012 and601 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, IV Team EDF Wing II, Egmore, Chennai, as against the petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 4are quashed.