TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have supplied the entire quantity of laptops which is again disputed by the second respondent. But what is important to be noted here is that on 16.11.2018 itself, the second petitioner lodged an FIR with Halasur Police against the second respondent, his wife Smt. H.G. Pranitha, Mrs. Kavitha Wagamore and Mrs. Vasudha Shenoy alleging that his employees viz., Mrs. Kavitha Wagamore and Mrs. Vasudha Shenoy colluded with the second respondent and his wife to run a parallel business under the name and style of Viva Info Solutions and caused loss to him - According to the second respondent, the petitioners have to pay him an amount of ₹ 4.95 crore towards the discount offered to him, which is disputed by the second petitioner. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 471, 468, 465, 467, 506 of IPC. 2. Heard Sri.M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the High Court Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and Sri. S. Balakrishna, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 3. It was the argument of Sri. M.T. Nanaiah that the second respondent being in charge of the business concern viz., Mahathru Technologies of which his wife is the proprietrix, entered into business transaction with the petitioners for buying the laptops. The first petitioner is a proprietary concern and the second petitioner is its proprietor. He referred to FIR to submit that according to the second respondent, when he entered into business transaction with the petitioners, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er s proprietary concern, looking after the accounts and the sales department. The second respondent might have stated that he had been cheated by the accused, but the fact is that much before registration of FIR against the petitioners and two other accused, the second petitioner had made a report against the second respondent and his two employees viz., Mrs. Kavitha Wagamore and Mrs. Vasudha Shenoy alleging fraud and cheating committed on the first petitioner concern. His FIR was registered as 421/2018 by the Halasuru Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences under Section 406, 408, 418, 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B r/w 34 IPC. In his FIR he has stated that his employees and the second respondent colluded to cheat him, that they started a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contract of offering the discount. A plain reading of the FIR does not indicate that the petitioners have committed of any offence of fraud, cheating, forgery etc. If the FIR is allowed to sustain, it is nothing but abuse of process of court and hence it needs to be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent argued that there are no grounds for quashing the FIR. Actually the second petitioner resorted to forging the signature of second respondent s wife on the cheques said to have been issued at the time of entering into business transaction with the petitioners. Entire quantity of laptops were not delivered to the second respondent and even the invoices were prepared to show that the laptops were delivered to the second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a lesser price. As submitted by Sri. M.T. Nanaiah, Halasur police filed charge sheet pursuant to FIR 421/2018 and the charge sheet is also produced here. The petitioners have also produced the copies of the complaints filed by them against the second respondent s proprietary concern, i.e., Mahathru Technologies for initiating action under Section 138 of N.I.Act. These complaints were filed on 12.12.2018 and 28.01.2019. Now if the allegations made by the second respondent in his FIR registered in Cr.No.34/2019 are seen in the background of the FIR registered by the second petitioner, a doubt arises about the veracity of the allegations in the second respondent s FIR. Apparently it can be made out from the allegations made by the second resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge sheet. If really the second respondent s grievance about cheating and forgery by the petitioners is genuine, he should have made a report to the police much earlier. If he thought of making a complaint to the police after registration of FIR against him in Cr.No.421/2018 and initiation of proceeding under Sec.138 of N.I.Act, obviously a doubt arises about the veracity in the contents of FIR 34/2019. The petitioners have made allegations against his employees viz., Mrs. Kavitha Wagamore and Mrs. Vasudha Shenoy and that the second respondent has also blamed them in his FIR. Therefore it can be said that the allegations against this petitioner in FIR No.34/2019 do not prima facie appear to be believable. Initiation of criminal action aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
