RAMESH GUNDURAYA SHENOY Vs. MADHAVA S HEJAMADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint in PC No.5/2011 and CC No.661/2012 said to be pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru (henceforth for brevity referred to as "the Court below") for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 419, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) The respondent herein is the complainant in the said PC No.5/2011. The summary of the complainant as could be gathered from the materials placed before this Court is that, he had filed a private complaint in the Court below against the present petitioner and three other accused alleging that he, as a Management Expert and Consultant, was engaged by the accused who were intended to sell the shares in their company, by name M/s.Canara Lighting Industries Limited. It was agreed between them that the complainant should find the purchaser for the shares in the said company and as a brokerage / commission, the complainant would get 5% on the market value of the shares sold upto Rs. 100/- per share and if the shares are sold for higher value than Rs. 100/-, then the said excess amount should be equally shared between the complainant and the accused. Accordingly, the complainant introduced one Mr.Ajith Khare to the accused. A deal was struck between accused and Mr.Ajith Khare for purchase of 96.88% of the total shares of the company of the accused at the rate of Rs. 118/- per share. It is the contention of the complainant that after the transaction, the accused went back on their commitment and refused to pay a sum of Rs. 2,10,80,500/- which was due to the complainant by the accused. However, they offered only 5% of the value of the shares sold upto Rs. 100/- per share and thereafter, a sum of Rs. 3/- per share sold above a sum of Rs. 100/-. This was not accepted by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint in the Court below.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating his contentions taken up in the petition, submitted in his argument that the respondent / complainant had also filed a money recovery suit with respect to the same transaction in O.S.No.200/2015, in the Court of Itinerary Senior Civil Judge at Moodbidri (henceforth for brevity hereinafter referred to as "Moodbidri Court") which also came to be dismissed by its considered judgment delivered on 27.02.2017. This clearly goes to show that the alleged transaction is purely civil in nature. It is also the further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a reading of the complaint filed by the respondent, no where gives any impression that the accused had any dishonest intention to cheat the complainant, as such, the alleged offences under penal law are not attracted. Stating that a dispute with respect to any commercial transaction, settlement of accounts or financial disputes are purely the matters of civil in nature, as such, criminal proceedings won't lie, he submitted for allowing the petition.