Mr.Ranjithkumar v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.12.2015

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Crl.O.P.No.11020 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 Mr.Ranjithkumar Naidu ... Petitioner/Accused NO.1 Vs.

1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore.

(Cr.No.27/2014) 2.C.Ananthakumar ... Respondents/Complainant Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Cr.No.27 of 2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, APP (For R1) Mrs.A.Vasanthi (For R2) * * * * *

ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to quash the complaint in Crime No.27 of 2014 pending on the file of the 1st respondent-Police.

2.The petitioner herein, an official of the State Bank of India, has been arrayed as 1st accused in the said case. The 2nd respondent herein has lodged the said complaint as against

the officials of the State Bank of India. In the complaint, it has been stated by the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant that he is a Director of M/s.Renaissance RTW Asia Private Limited, holding 50% shares in the said company. The company is engaged in the business of exporting knitted/woven garments. The sole banker of the company is the State Bank of India. It is the allegation of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant that due to the misconduct committed by the accused persons, his company has suffered huge loss. Hence, he has filed a complaint before the 1st respondent-Police and the same was registered in Crime No.27 of 2014 under Sections 409 & 201 IPC against the accused persons.

3.Now, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition seeking to quash the complaint.

4.Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, a memo of compromise was filed by the 2nd respondent/defactocomplainant stating that the matter was settled amicably between the parties and he has no objection to quash the complaint. Memo of compromise filed by the 2nd respondent/defactocomplainant is recorded.

5.Heard both sides and and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, I am of the opinion that the complaint in Crime No.27 of 2014 pending on the file of the 1st respondent-Police is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed in respect of all the accused persons.

The memo of compromise filed by the Defacto-complainant shall form part of the order. In fine, the criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. *Herein enter Memo of compromise -s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To, 1.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.11020 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 aa18/12/2015