R.RAJU Vs. WIPRO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.805 of 2013 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai.

(2.) Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A4. The respondent filed the private complaint as against the petitioners and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 120 (b), 420, 500, 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. in CC.No.805 of 2013 only to extract money. The present complaint has been filed against the petitioners and it is nothing but abuse of process of Court and it is liable to be quashed. There is absolutely no averments to attract the offence under Sections 120 (b), 420, 500, 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. as against the petitioners. He further submitted that to constitute offence under Section 499 I.P.C. thereby there should be specific averments that the petitioners by their conduct had harmed the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of others. He further submitted that in the entire complaint nowhere stated that the reputation of the complainant has been harmed in the estimation of others. Therefore, there is absolutely no averments to attract the said offence and the complainant has no locus to stand further. He further submitted that the petitioners would fall in the 7th and 8th exceptions of Section 499 I.P.C. Therefore, the complaint cannot be sustained as against the petitioners. The entire issue is purely civil dispute between the employer and the employee. The respondent was being terminated on account of unsatisfactory performance is trying to harass the petitioners and to extract money from the petitioners and it is also evident from the legal notice dated 15.05.2013 wherein the respondent has claimed compensation of Rs.100 lakhs. Therefore, the entire complaint is false and foisted one and he prayed for quashment of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.805 of 2013. He further relied upon the following judgments to support his case.

(3.) Per Contra, Mr.R.Baskar, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the present quash petition has been filed only to protract the proceedings before the trial Court. After complying the procedure contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 120 (b), 420, 500, 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. as against all the accused. The accused knowing fully well that there is no employment at Saudi Arabia made a false promise to the respondent that they are sending him to serve in Saudi Arabia for employment purpose and made him to work at Bangalore to achieve their object of getting the respondent who is with the special knowledge to work at Bangalore for Mobily and thus gained wrongfully for themselves. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 is clearly made out as against the petitioners. In respect of Section 506 I.P.C. is concerned there is a prima facie case for criminal intimidation to attract offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. as against the petitioners / accused and the accused conspired together and acted as against the respondent to remove him from the company as he was standing as an impediment to get more improper revenue and also that he complained about the malafide acts of the accused to the authorities. Therefore, the offences under Sections 120 (b), 420, 500, 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. are squarely made out as against the petitioners and all the points raised by the petitioners herein can be raised only during trial before the trial court. In fact, initially the learned Magistrate have taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners. The said summons were challenged before this Court and this Court remitted the matter back to the trial Court to conduct enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the trial court conducted detailed enquiry and on receipt of report from the concerned jurisdictional police namely, the Inspector of Police, J10 Semmanchery Police Station and have taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 120 (b), 420, 500, 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. and also relied upon the following five judgments.