TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Petition No. 4624 of 2022] of the case pending on the file of the 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. 3. The background facts as have been noticed by the Court below are as follows: (i) The accused together run M/s Kay Pee Exporters who export textiles and related products. Accused Nos. 1 and 2, the managing partners of the firm, in the course of business, came in contact with Respondent No. 2 who is the private complainant, and ran businesses similar in nature to the Accused, in the United States of America and Canada; (ii) They developed a mutually beneficial business relationship wherein the complainant allegedly had to invest money into the business of the accused, in the form of aiding its expansion into these markets and in turn he would be entitled to 1/3rd profits of this venture; (iii) The complainant's case is that, upholding his end of the bargain, he periodically made investments into the business and also promoted a company by the name M/s Associated Textile Inc, established as per the laws of the Illinois State, but the accused had no intent of honouring their part. On the other hand, the appellants herein maint....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile, Inc and against Defendants Palaniswamy Veeraraja and Kaypee Exporters, on all counts of Defendants Counterclaim. Defendants shall take nothing, and are entitled to no payment, credit or set off from Plaintiff." (v) Shortly thereafter, he filed a complaint under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore, that led to the present proceedings; (vi) Pursuant to the complaint, the matter was taken up for investigation by the Indra Nagar Police Station on 9th August 2006. On 17th November 2006, a closure report was filed recording that the dispute between the parties is entirely civil in nature; (vii) On 1st September 2007 the complainant filed an application under Section 173(8) CrPC seeking permission for further investigation. The same was dismissed by an order dated 8th October 2007. Shortly thereafter, a criminal miscellaneous petition was filed to restore the complaint and direct further investigation which came to be allowed by Sessions Court on 31st May 2010; (viii) A second closure report was filed on 22nd November 2011. But then again on 25th February 2012 Police Inspector Indiranagar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the submissions made on behalf of appellant nos.1 and 2, the proceedings may, at the very best, be closed in so far as appellant nos.3 and 4 are concerned. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Prateek Chadha learned Additional Advocate General appeared for the State of Karnataka and Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, senior advocate appeared for the complainant-respondent no. 2. submitted as follows:- a) The remittance of amounts by the complainant to the appellants is an admitted fact and despite the former having done his part, the latter did not carry out the agreed scenario of sharing profits; b) The District Court, Illinois found the complainant's case to be justified on four counts i.e., (i) breach of joint venture agreement; (ii) fraudulent inducement; (iii) tortuous interference with contract; and (iv) unjust enrichment; c) 28 out of the 119 documents were found to be forged. They carried the name and signature of the complainant but upon being examined by handwriting experts at the instance of the complainant, it was found that they were fabricated. This shows the fraudulent intent on part of the appellants; and d) The app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....73(8) of the Code. The doctrine of contemporanea expositio will fully come to the aid of such interpretation as the matters which are understood and implemented for a long time, and such practice that is supported by law should be accepted as part of the interpretative process. This proposition was approved in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 1 and reiterated in Peethambaran v. State of Kerala (2024) 16 SCC 65. Recently, in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511, this Bench observed as follows: "21. Before parting with this matter, we deem it fit to issue the following directions: (i) In view of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, it can be seen that the 'leave of the court' to file a supplementary chargesheet, is a part of Section 173(8) CrPC. That being the position, in our considered view, the Court is not rendered functus officio having granted such permission. Since the further investigation is being made with the leave of the Court, judicial stewardship/control thereof, is a function which the court must perform. (ii) Reasons are indispensable to the proper functioning of the machinery of criminal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onclusion. [emphasis in original]" 10. Record reveals that although an application had been filed before the concerned Magistrate for further investigation a third time around, no order specifically granting permission is appended on record, neither it is a submission of the party that permission stood granted. In view of the above judgments, submission of respondent no. 2 that permission is not required has to be negated. 11. On this short ground alone, the First Information Report and the eventual chargesheet could be quashed, set aside and the matter would be put to rest. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that proceedings inter se the parties have been ongoing for a considerable period of time, doing so would leave open the possibility of another round of litigation and as such we proceed to examine the merits of the matter. 12. The appellants and the respondents are both business owners. They allegedly entered into an agreement where one party would make monetary investment and the other would supply textile goods. One party says that the relationship continued without any incident between 1995 and 2000 and it is only thereafter that disputes arose regarding....