R. Balasubramanian and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.S. Karnan, J.—The petitioners have filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in First Information Report in Crime

No. 22 of 2004 on the file of the respondent police, and quash the same.

Supporting the case, the first petitioner has filed an affidavit on behalf of the other petitioners stating that the first petitioner is the Managing

Director of M/s. Kongarar Spinners Ltd., second petitioner is the Finance Manager, third petitioner is the factory manager, fourth petitioner is the

store keeper and the fifth petitioner is the technical director.

The said factory has been functioning from 1972 onwards. Due to recession in the textile industry, the mill was incurring loss for the past seven

years. So, the company faced a severe liquidity crisis. Further, the workers intermittently went on strike. In the result, there was a substantial

production loss. Due to constant erosion in the capital, the company was forced to file a petition before the Board for Industrial and Financial

Reconstruction in the year 2000 and the Board has declared the company as sick unit by its order dated 21.11.2000. The company offered

voluntary retirement scheme in the year 1996. About 350 employees opted for voluntary retirement scheme in the year 1996. The company

proposed that the voluntary retirement scheme amount would be calculated as proposed in the scheme and the amount would be retained in the

respective employees account and interest, calculated at 19% per annum, would be paid on the retained amount every month. Accepting this

proposal, 350 employees opted for voluntary retirement and accordingly deposit receipts were issued to them. As promised, interest was paid to

them promptly and the company had settled the due amount to more than 102 employees. After the declaration of the company as sick unit, the

voluntarily retired persons approached the company to safeguard their deposits, and made request to the effect that their deposits were to be

converted as labour dues and necessary certificates were to be issued to that effect. Accordingly, acknowledgement of due was issued. The

deposit receipts already issued were withdrawn.

The petitioners further contended that the workers had indulged in many illegal strikes which had affected the company improvement and thus

the company was forced to suspend the operation of the mill.

One Rajendiran, calling himself as the president of the said mill, preferred a complaint against the said mill to various authorities. On his

complaint, the District Collector convened a meeting. However, due to pressure given by the District Collector, the company agreed to pay Rs.

2000/- to eighty persons represented by the said Rajendran. After that, the said Rajendiran has filed a criminal complaint against the management.

The company also filed a Writ Petition before this Honourable Court and got an order for interim injunction against the District Collector and

Deputy Superintendent of Police from prosecuting the Company. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the said Rajendiran

preferred a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The same 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, the petitioners contended

that the police cannot arbitrarily demand the company to pay the dues immediately. Further, the Deputy Superintendent of Police registered a case

on Rajendiran''s complaint on an alleged offence under Sections 120-B, 406, 408, 469, 471, 420 r/w. 109 of IPC. On the said complaint, the

petitioners are under bail. The petitioners for supporting their case had filed 11 documents.

The complainant''s First Information Report disclosed that one Rajendiran had lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others stating that

they had cheated the workers of a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Further, the complaint disclosed that the employees'' deposit amounts have not been

repaid. The defacto complainant''s relative, one Sakuntala, was cheated of a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-. Further, the petitioner company provided

Televisions on instalment basis. The said amount was deducted from the employees'' salary, but the company did not remit the amount to the

supplies of the Television; similar irregularities were fraudulently committed on the employees of the company. On the basis of the complaint of the

said Rajendiran, the respondent police registered a case.

The respondent police had also filed a counter statement. The respondent police had registered a First Information Report not only to safeguard

the interest of innocent employees but also to punish the actual culprits. The respondent wants to submits that they bring out the actual truth of

misappropriation of money, entrusted to the petitioners by the employees. Further, the respondent need not take any steps to verify the present

financial status of the company. The respondent has the duty to protect the general public from the offenders.

Further, the petitioners have forged the signatures of 110 employees and obtained house hold loans from Mercantile Bank in Tiruppur Branch,

to the tune of Rs. 44 lakhs even without the knowledge of the employees.

The respondent further pointed out that for the offence committed by the petitioner, they cannot go behind the shield of Board for Industrial and

Financial Reconstruction, wherein no provisions are given for enforcing criminal actions. Further, the petitioners cheated the employees of their

gratuity and provident fund.

The learned Counsel for the respondent argued the case on behalf of the State.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the main allegation is that the employees of the company were cheated by the petitioners

by way of fraudulently availing house loan, non-payment of instalments for Televisions purchased, forging of signatures of employees, non-payment

of gratuity and G.P.F. to employees, and other similar offences. As such, the above offences are collectively the problem of many employees.

Under the circumstances, the Court is not warranted to interfere with the proceedings in Crime No. 22 of 2004 on the file of the respondent

police, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No. 29668 of 2004 has got to be dismissed and hence, it is dismissed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.