2.1. He further submitted that the first petitioner is a Senior grade Police Official, the second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner and the third petitioner is their son. The petitioners never indulged in any money lending business. He further submitted that the second respondent originally lodged complaint on 04.06.2017, before the Inspector General Of Police, West Zone and the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District. On the complaint an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime & Traffic, Salem and the said complaint was closed as mistake of fact. Suppressing the said fact, the second respondent again filed a complaint before the Magistrate Court and the same was forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On the said direction, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2018 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC & Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. He further submitted that the defacto complainant had given undertaking before the Deputy Superintendent of Police stating that he has lodged a false complaint due to wrong presumption and no further action shall be taken as against the petitioners. Therefore, the pendency of the FIR would not serve any purpose and he prayed for quashment of the FIR.
