PRAVEEN SURENDIRAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by accused No.1 in P.C.R.No.9076 of 2019 filed by one Saurabh Kumar Singh inter alia alleging that he and accused No.2- Sreekumar Sundaramoorthy co-founded a Company called M/s.Norte Technologies India Private Limited ('Company' for short). The complainant was the person who was funding the Company. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 hatched a conspiracy to forge complainants' signature on certain documents to cheat him. When the copies of the documents were downloaded from the Web-portal of Registrar of Companies (for short, hereinafter referred as 'ROC'), complainant learnt that his resignation was reported to the ROC based on a fabricated letter dated 31.12.2015.

(2.) It is further stated that accused No.3 was appointed as an Additional Director in the Company. Accused Nos. 3, 1, 5, 7 and 6 forced the complainant to sign a document and to take a part of the money, which he had invested or to face dire consequences. He signed a 'No objection agreement' on 03.08.2017 under threat and coercion and subsequently, accused No.1 transferred Rs.20 Lakhs online to complainant's bank account. It is further stated that by the aforementioned acts of the accused, complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.50 Lakhs being the initial funding and 50% of the amount from proceeds of transfer of all rights from the Company in favour of M/s.Europ Assistance. Learned Magistrate referred the case for investigation to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, FIR No.137 of 2019 has been registered on 23.07.2019 in Cubbon Park Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 149, 423, 465, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC.

(3.) Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that this is a case of a regular business transaction between the petitioner and the accused which has been given the colour of criminal conspiracy. He adverted to 'separation agreement' dated 28.07.2017 and submitted that pursuant to the separation agreement, complainant has been paid his due share. He further contended that the date of knowledge of complainant's resignation on 31.12.2015 from the Board of Company based on alleged fabricated document is not forthcoming in the complaint. Similarly, the date on which the complainant was allegedly threatened is also not forthcoming in the complaint. In substance, he argued that complaint does not contain any specific dates and overt-acts of the petitioner.