JAYAPRAKASH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEEKING to quash the FIR in Crime No. 224 of 2010, on the file of the first respondent police, the petitioner, who is the sole accused in the case, has come up with this petition. The second respondent is the de -facto complainant in the case. The said case has been registered for offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

(2.) I have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

(3.) THE learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is true that the second respondent became a share holder in the company known as M/s. Talen Capital India Pvt. Ltd. He would further submit that the second respondent had 3350 shares. Learned Senior counsel would further point out that there was some mis -understanding between the petitioner and the second respondent, which resulted in a legal notice being issued by the petitioner to the second respondent on 23.04.2010. For the said notice, the second respondent issued a reply notice, wherein he has stated in paragraph Nos. 2 to 5 as follows: