9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yed or altered. The acts of the Appellant did not have any dishonest intention while considering the allegations in respect of the other offences. In the circumstances, no case is made out Under Sections 65 and 66 of the I.T. Act, 2000. The High Court seems to have over looked these circumstances and has merely dismissed the petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that it requires evidence at a trial to come to any conclusion - the criminal proceedings initiated by the Respondent constitute an abuse of process of Court and it is necessary to meet the ends of justice to quash the prosecution against the Appellant. The prosecution is quashed - Appeal allowed. - HON'BLE JUDGES S.A. BOBDE AND AMITAVA ROY JJ. For the Appellant : K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., V. Karthik, R. Anand Padmanabhan, Romil Pathak, Anand Sharma and Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advs. For the Respondents : R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., B. Karunakaran, Adv. for A. Radhakrishnan, Adv. JUDGMENT S.A. BOBDE, J. 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal O.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for mismanagement has been dismissed but an appeal is pending. We are, however, not concerned with those proceedings. 8. However, in the course of disputes and the pending proceedings, the Respondent initiated the instant criminal complaint against the Appellant. The main circumstances which are relied upon by the Respondent in the complaint is that in the website for Devi Consultancy Services that was created on the advice of the consultant is shown as a separate division independent of Devi Polymers Private Limited. According to the complainant, this has resulted in forgery, since there is no such thing as Devi Consultancy Services; though the existence of Unit C of Devi Polymers Private Limited, which deal with consultancy is not denied. The second circumstance seems to be the payment made by the Devi Polymers Private Limited to the consultants from their own account. The former is said to be forgery and the latter is said to be mis-appropriation of funds and breach of trust. 9. Having given our anxious consideration to the dispute, we find that none of the aforesaid circumstances can lead to an inference of commission of an offence under the Indian Penal Code at any rate n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d contract or any intent to commit fraud in the making of the said website. The Appellant has not committed any act which fits the above description. Admittedly, he has not received a single rupee or nor has he entered into any contract in his own name on the basis of the above website. 13. Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 14. In the absence of any act in pursuance of the website by which he has deceived any person fraudulently or dishonestly, induced any one to deliver any property to any person, we find that it is not possible to attribute any intention of cheating which is a necessary ingredient for the offence Under Section 468. 15. We find that the allegations that the Appellant is guilty of an offence under the aforesaid Section are inherently improbable and there is no sufficient ground of proceedings against the accused. The proceedings have been initiated aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We find that the High Court ought to have exercised its power under Clause (1), (3) and (5) of the above said judgment. 17. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors., reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692, this Court observed as follows: 7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing above we find that no offence is made out Under Section 66 of the I.T. Act, read with Section 43. The Appellant was a Director of Devi Polymers and nothing is brought on record to show that he did not have any authority to access the computer system or the computer network of the company. That apart there is nothing on record to show the commission of offence Under Section 65 of the I.T. Act, since the allegation is not that any computer source code has been concealed, destroyed or altered. We have already observed that the acts of the Appellant did not have any dishonest intention while considering the allegations in respect of the other offences. In the circumstances, no case is made out Under Sections 65 and 66 of the I.T. Act, 2000. 22. The High Court seems to have over looked these circumstances and has merely dismissed the petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that it requires evidence at a trial to come to any conclusion. We, however, find that the criminal proceedings initiated by the Respondent constitute an abuse of process of Court and it is necessary to meet the ends of justice to quash the prosecution against the Appellant. 23. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
