2021 (7) TMI 692

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 assured to him that a discount to the extent of 15 to 18% would be given....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he 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 parallel business concern under the name and style of Viva Info Solutions. They....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at 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 respondent. The invoice numbers found on the invoice forms raised in connection with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rsuant 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 respondent that he did not think of taking any action till 26.2.2019, although he came to kn....