ORDER : 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.410 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, in so far as the petitioner/5th accused is concerned. 2. Facts and case as mentioned in the final report filed by the first respondent before the Trial Court:- The defacto complainant is running a Mill called 'Janakiraman Mills' at Rajapalayam. The defacto complainant is the Sales Manager in the said Company and the Mill is engaged in Yarn manufacturing and distribution. The first accused was supplying materials to the Mill and so, got acquainted with them. He introduced the other accused to the complainant Mill stating that they are also businessmen and they are intended to purchase yarn from the complainant Mill on credit basis. They also assured that they will pay the amount without any default. 3. The second respondent was stated to be a Government Servant and he has also assured that he will stood as guarantor the due payment of money, so that, the Mill can supply the Yarn on credit basis. 4. On the basis of the assurance given by all the accused persons, complainant Mill supplied yarn bales, worth about Rs.4,80,439.35/- to the accused 1 to 5. At the time of purchase, the accused paid Rs.2.50 lakhs in cash and they promised that the balance amount will be paid in due course. 5. But, inspite of passage of time, they defaulted in payment of the balance amount. Thereafter, towards discharge, the third accused issued a cheque to the complainant Company, for a sum of Rs.2,30,440/-, bearing No.258470, dated 29.06.2001. When the same was presented for collection, it was dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds'. So, the defacto complainant filed a complaint, which was registered in Crime No.525 of 2002, for the offence under Section 420 IPC. After completing the investigation, the first respondent filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.410 of 2005. 6. Seeking quashment of the final report, the petitioner, who is the 5th accused before the Trial Court, has filed this petition, mainly on the ground that he is no way connected with the business affairs of the accused Nos.1 to 4 and the entire transaction took place only between the defacto complainant and the above said persons. 7. 6. Seeking quashment of the final report, the petitioner, who is the 5th accused before the Trial Court, has filed this petition, mainly on the ground that he is no way connected with the business affairs of the accused Nos.1 to 4 and the entire transaction took place only between the defacto complainant and the above said persons. 7. Moreover, as per the final report, no allegation of cheating is made against this petitioner. It is the further contention that the cheque alleged to have been issued by the third accused was stated to be dishonoured. So, the offence under Section 420 of IPC, will not lie. 8. After hearing the arguments of the parties, records from the Trial Court were called for. Copies of the records were submitted by the Trial Court through its letter, dated 19.02.2021. Perusal of the entire Trial Court records as well as the typed set of papers filed by this petitioner, shows that the defacto complainant Company supplied yarn on credit basis to the accused, who were stated to be running the joint business. But, no such record has been recovered by the Investigating Officer, to show that all the accused are running a joint business. Need not go into the allegation made against the other accused 1 to 4 suffice to discuss the case only with regard to the allegation made against this petitioner. 9. In the complaint, the defacto complainant has stated that the first accused introducing the other accused persons on 21.06.2021 stating that they are running yarn business jointly and they required yarn, which may be supplied by the defacto complainant on credit basis. The second accused was stated to be a Government Servant, the bill was required to be made in the name of the third accused. The first accused has undertook to ensure the due payment. On that basis, Yarn, worth about Rs.4,80,439.35/- was supplied. Due of which, Rs.2.50 lakhs was paid in cash on 21.06.2001, i.e., on the date of introduction itself. The balance amount of Rs.2,30,440/-, for which, the third accused issued a cheque and the same was returned. Thereafter, at the request, made by the third accused, it was also presented for second time. It was also returned and the same was informed to the other accused namely, Govindaraj. He promised to settle the amount. But, later, they failed to do so. Thereafter, at the request, made by the third accused, it was also presented for second time. It was also returned and the same was informed to the other accused namely, Govindaraj. He promised to settle the amount. But, later, they failed to do so. Further, it is also stated that the balance amount, could not be recovered through legal process. In the concluding para, it is stated that all the accused entered into the transaction with an intention to cheat the complainant Company. 10. So, the substance of the complaint clearly shows that it is a business transaction and the balance amount was liable to be paid by the accused persons. But, the transaction took place only in the name of the third accused, who had also issued a cheque for discharging the liability. The role played by this petitioner in the entire transaction is not either stated in the complaint or in the final report. One important feature, which is available on record submitted by the Trial Court is the letter written by the third accused to the defacto complainant Company wherein, it has been stated that the liability to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,94,000/- and he undertook the sole responsibility to discharge the amount and the other persons are not connected with the transaction. He also undertook that he is ready to undergo any legal process that may be taken by the defacto complainant Company and also requested six months time to settle the whole amount. The above mentioned letter is dated 10.10.2002. The complaint was given on 27.10.2002, which shows that even before the expiry of the six months time, sought for by the third accused, complaint has been given. As mentioned earlier, the role played by this petitioner is no way mentioned. Even as per the allegation made in the complaint, it is seen that this petitioner went along with other persons at the time of introduction. So, I am of the considered view that it is a out and out business transaction, for which, only a civil action will lie and not criminal action. 11. Similarly, there is no allegation to the effect that at the time of entering into the business transaction this petitioner along with others intentionally entered into the business transaction to cheat the defacto complainant Company. 11. Similarly, there is no allegation to the effect that at the time of entering into the business transaction this petitioner along with others intentionally entered into the business transaction to cheat the defacto complainant Company. The materials collected by the Investigating Officer also do not suggest any inference to be drawn that this petitioner intentionally deceived the defacto complainant to enter into the business transaction. 12. Moreover, the document mentioned by me dated 10.10.2002 was also collected by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This document is not denied by the defacto complainant. So, the document can be taken into account for deciding this petition. So, on the basis of the document, I am of the considered view that no ingredients of offence is attracted against this petitioner. So, the charge sheet filed against this petitioner is liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed. 13. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.