IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.03.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No. 32308 of 2007 & M.P. No. 1 of 2007 Suresh Kumar Jain .. Petitioner. Versus Ge Money Financial Service Ltd., Rep. by its Officer, Executive (Legal) Jegan Mohan 72, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. .. Respondent. Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the records in C.C. No. 7718 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Sivakumar For Respondent : No Representation ***** O R D E R
This petition seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 7718 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai wherein the petitioner stands accused for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The undisputed facts are that the respondent / complainant is a company affording financial services and the petitioner has availed loan of Rs.4 lakhs therefrom. The petitioner has defaulted in effecting payment of instalments. A complaint has been filed inter alia alleging that the sum advanced was towards purchase of used car, that loan availed by the petitioner was not used for such purchase and thereby complainant has been cheated.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The respondent has not appeared before this Court, despite service. Subsequently, this Court appointed an Amicus Curiae, who is also not present before this Court.
4. However, in this facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the matter need not be kept pending any further. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that he had availed of a personal loan and the allegation of sum being paid towards purchase of used car is only made towards making out a case under Section 420 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers this Court to the sanction letter as also legal notice dated 02.12.2006 issued by the respondent / complainant. Such notice merely demands payment of amount due on cheques issued by the petitioner, which had been returned unpaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that had the loan granted to the petitioner been misappropriated, such notice would have informed so.
5. It is apparent to this Court that what is essentially a civil dispute is being given colour of a criminal offence. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner stands uncontroverted and in the circumstances are accepted. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 7718 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.03.2010
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
ar
To
1. III Metropolitan Magistrate,
George Town, Chennai
C.T.SELVAM,J.,
ar
Crl.O.P.No. 32308 of 2007 & M.P. No. 1 of 2007
29.03.2010