S M PATHAK Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C) the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 1961 of 2009 (old no. 1502 of 2006) State vs. Yogesh Vaidya & others, relating to offence punishable under section 420 I.P.C, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Vikasnagar, Dehradun.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are Senior Officers of Software Technology Group International Ltd., a company engaged in the business of providing information technology/education and training, having its registered office in New Delhi. The State of Himachal Pradesh launched a project for imparting computer education through 234 schools in said State. State of Himachal Pradesh invited quotations, in response to which the petitioner's company also submitted its quotations. Respondent no. 2/complainant offered his services in the matter to help the petitioner's company, in respect of which a Memorandum of Understanding was entered between the two on 04.08.2004 (copy Annexure- 2 to the petition). Petitioner's case is that respondent no. 2 in collusion with one S.S. Sidana, (ex-employee of the applicant's company) opened a bank account in the State Bank of India, Shimla, and submitted a fake Company Board Resolution to the bank informing that 90% of the billed amount is to be transferred to the complainant's account in State Bank of India, I.M.A., Dehradun Branch. On coming to know of said facts, according to the petitioner, the company terminated the contract on 02.12.2004. The petitioner's company also came to know that the bank guarantee which was given by the complainant/respondent no. 2 in pursuance to the contract with the petitioner's company was fake. After termination of the contract respondent no. 2/complainant, in revenge against the company, moved an application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., before Special Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I) Dehradun, alleging that officers of the petitioner's company have committed an offence punishable under section 420 of I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the officers of the petitioner's company which includes name of the petitioners.