Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 364 (MAD)

Latha v. State

2017-02-08

P.KALAIYARASAN

body2017
ORDER : P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in C.C. No. 328 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Madurai and quash the same. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners have been charge sheeted for the offence under Section 409 and 420 of I.P.C. alleging that the petitioners, who had been purchasing textile from the second respondent/defacto complainant failed to pay the purchase money of Rs. 1,27,295/- under various bills and though the petitioners executed an agreement on 21.03.2007 agreeing to pay the said sum, has not paid the amount. Therefore, the petitioners committed offences under Section 409, 415, 420 read with 120(b) of IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that commercial civil transaction has been converted into a criminal case and the offences as alleged in the charge sheet are not made out and therefore, the proceedings as against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the first respondent, per contra, contends that only after thorough investigation, charge sheet has been laid and the same was also taken cognizance of by the Judicial Magistrate. The offences as alleged in the charge-sheet are made out and therefore, the criminal original petition is to be dismissed. 5. No representation on behalf of the second respondent. 6. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, who are doing textile business had been purchasing textiles from the second respondent on various dates in 2006 and the petitioners had failed to repay Rs. 1,27,295/- and though they agreed to pay the same under an agreement dated 21.03.2007, they have not paid. To attract section 409 of IPC, there would be an entrustment of property and breach of trust with respect to that property. Here, the petitioners purchased the property and they have not paid part of purchase money. This does not attract the offence under Section 409 of I.P.C. 7. Nowhere, it is stated that the petitioners either deceived or fraudulently or dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to deliver the products. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioners had been purchasing the textiles several times and finally, they failed to pay the amount, which is due to the defacto complainant. Nowhere, it is stated that the petitioners either deceived or fraudulently or dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to deliver the products. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioners had been purchasing the textiles several times and finally, they failed to pay the amount, which is due to the defacto complainant. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is only civil nature. Failure to comply with the agreement entered into between the parties does not attract any criminal offence. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the offence as alleged by the prosecution in the charge sheet are not made out and therefore, the proceedings in C.C. No. 328 of 2009 is liable to be quashed against the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 328 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Madurai are quashed against the petitioners. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.