R. Balasubramanian v. The State of Tamil Nadurepresented by itsSub Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch,Coimbatore Police Station,Coimbatore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:28.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCrl.O.P.No.29668 of 2004andCrl.M.P.No.9308 of 20041.R. Balasubramanian2.T.Nedunchezhiyan3.K. Mani Murugu4.S. Palanisamy5.Muthiah Pillai.. PetitionersVersusThe State of Tamil Nadurepresented by itsSub Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch,Coimbatore Police Station,Coimbatore... Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to to call for therecords in First Information Report in Crime No.22 of 2004 on thefile of the respondent police, and quash the same.For Petitioners : M/s. Malarvizhi UdayakumarFor Respondent : Mr. R.Muniappa raj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)O R D E RThe petitioners have filed the above Criminal Original Petitionto call for the records in First Information Report in Crime No.22 of2004 on the file of the respondent police, and quash the same.2.Supporting the case, the first petitioner has filed anaffidavit on behalf of the other petitioners stating that the firstpetitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Kongarar Spinners Ltd.,second petitioner is the Finance Manager, third petitioner is thefactory manager, fourth petitioner is the store keeper and the fifthpetitioner is the technical director. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The said factory has been functioning from 1972 onwards.Due to recession in the textile industry, the mill was incurring lossfor the past seven years. So, the company faced a severe liquiditycrisis. Further, the workers intermittently went on strike. In theresult, there was a substantial production loss. Due to constanterosion in the capital, the company was forced to file a petitionbefore the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in theyear 2000 and the Board has declared the company as sick unit by itsorder dated 21.11.2000. The company offered voluntary retirementscheme in the year 1996. About 350 employees opted for voluntaryretirement scheme in the year 1996. The company proposed that thevoluntary retirement scheme amount would be calculated as proposed inthe scheme and the amount would be retained in the respectiveemployees account and interest, calculated at 19% per annum, would bepaid on the retained amount every month. Accepting this proposal,350 employees opted for voluntary retirement and accordingly depositreceipts were issued to them. As promised, interest was paid to thempromptly and the company had settled the due amount to more than 102employees. After the declaration of the company as sick unit, thevoluntarily retired persons approached the company to safeguard theirdeposits, and made request to the effect that their deposits were tobe converted as labour dues and necessary certificates were to beissued to that effect. Accordingly, acknowledgement of due wasissued. The deposit receipts already issued were withdrawn. 4.The petitioners further contended that the workers hadindulged in many illegal strikes which had affected the companyimprovement and thus the company was forced to suspend the operationof the mill.5.One Rajendiran, calling himself as the president of thesaid mill, preferred a complaint against the said mill to variousauthorities. On his complaint, the District Collector convened ameeting. However, due to pressure given by the District Collector,the company agreed to pay Rs.2000/- to eighty persons represented bythe said Rajendran. After that, the said Rajendiran has filed acriminal complaint against the management. The company also filed aWrit Petition before this Honourable Court and got an order forinterim injunction against the District Collector and DeputySuperintendent of Police from prosecuting the Company. Subsequently,the Writ Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the said Rajendiranpreferred a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thesame was registered as the above said Crime No.22 of 2004. Further,the petitioners contended that the defacto complainant, Rajendiran,has no locus standi to lodge such a complaint. Further, thepetitioners contended that the police cannot arbitrarily demand thecompany to pay the dues immediately. Further, the DeputySuperintendent of Police registered a case on Rajendiran's complainton an alleged offence under Sections 120-B, 406, 408, 469, 471, 420 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ r/w. 109 of IPC. On the said complaint, the petitioners are underbail. The petitioners for supporting their case had filed 11documents.6.The complainant's First Information Report disclosed thatone Rajendiran had lodged a complaint against the petitioners andothers stating that they had cheated the workers of a sum ofRs.1,50,00,000/-. Further, the complaint disclosed that theemployees' deposit amounts have not been repaid. The defactocomplainant's relative, one Sakuntala, was cheated of a sum ofRs.1,40,000/-. Further, the petitioner company provided Televisionson instalment basis. The said amount was deducted from theemployees' salary, but the company did not remit the amount to thesupplies of the Television; similar irregularities were fraudulentlycommitted on the employees of the company. On the basis of thecomplaint of the said Rajendiran, the respondent police registered acase.7.The respondent police had also filed a counter statement.The respondent police had registered a First Information Report notonly to safeguard the interest of innocent employees but also topunish the actual culprits. The respondent wants to submits thatthey bring out the actual truth of misappropriation of money,entrusted to the petitioners by the employees. Further, therespondent need not take any steps to verify the present financialstatus of the company. The respondent has the duty to protect thegeneral public from the offenders.8.Further, the petitioners have forged the signatures of 110employees and obtained house hold loans from Mercantile Bank inTiruppur Branch, to the tune of Rs.44 lakhs even without theknowledge of the employees. 9.The respondent further pointed out that for the offencecommitted by the petitioner, they cannot go behind the shield ofBoard for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, wherein noprovisions are given for enforcing criminal actions. Further, thepetitioners cheated the employees of their gratuity and providentfund.10.The learned counsel for the respondent argued the case onbehalf of the State.11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, themain allegation is that the employees of the company were cheated bythe petitioners by way of fraudulently availing house loan, non-payment of instalments for Televisions purchased, forging ofsignatures of employees, non-payment of gratuity and G.P.F. toemployees, and other similar offences. As such, the above offencesare collectively the problem of many employees. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.Under the circumstances, the Court is not warranted tointerfere with the proceedings in Crime No.22 of 2004 on the file ofthe respondent police, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, theCriminal Original Petition No.29668 of 2004 has got to be dismissedand hence, it is dismissed. Consequently, connected MiscellaneousPetition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar / True Copy / Sub.Asst Registrar mraTo1.Sub Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch,Coimbatore Police Station,Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Crl.O.P.No.29668 of 2004andCrl.M.P.No.9308 of 2004KK(CO)EM/7.8.09