HARSHAVARDHAN MADHAV CHITALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable and heard forthwith.

(2.) By this Writ Petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 4 th February 2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur in Regular Criminal Case No.517 of 2014. By the said order dated 4 th February , the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued process against the accused persons, amongst which Petitioner herein is accused No.3, for the offences punishable under Section 418 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and, the complaint against the accused persons for offences punishable under Section 120-B, 406, 465 and 477 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code is dismissed vide Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) The facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition, can in brief be stated thus :- The Petitioner herein is the original accused No.3 in the complaint filed by Respondent No.2. On 04/10/2010 the petitioner joined the services of one M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd, i.e. Original Accused No.1, as Chief Executive Officer. The Petitioner was appointed as Managing Director of M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd with effect from 01/10/2013. Subsequently on 28/08/2014 the Petitioner submitted his resignation to the Board of Directors and left the said company on 31/12/2014. Respondent No.2 herein i.e. the original complainant is in the business of buying and selling of computer as well as consultancy and other allied services for more than 17 years and his business network is spread over in the State of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Goa. In the year 2008, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation floated a tender on Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) for a period of 10 years for implementing an e-governance project. The said tender was published in the local newspaper in which information as regards various departments of Corporation was provided along with its fee structure. It is the case of the complainant that after publication of tender and before inviting bids, during the intervening period, a meeting of interested candidates was called upon by the corporation. During the said meeting one Mr. Manaskumar Das, original accused No.6, who at the relevant time was the business manager of accused No.1 company, was present along with one of his associate. It is alleged that the said Manaskumar Das, by gathering the information about the goodwill and reputation of complainant's firm as well as the complainant's social, political and professional contracts with the corporation, approached the complainant and offered to enter into an agreement with the complainant for inter alia utilizing the complainant's social, political and professional contracts and to secure the tender in favour of the accused no.1 company, and in lieu thereof Rs.5,43,20,000/- agreed to be paid by the accused no.1 company to the complainant in the manner provided under the said agreement. Accordingly, an agreement dated 05 th May 2009 came to be executed in the presence of all the accused. The said agreement was signed by the complainant in the capacity of proprietor of his business firm, and Regional Manager Mr. Sabu Paul (accused No.3) on behalf of accused No.1 company. Accused No.6 Mr. Manaskumar Das - Senior Business Manager of Accused No.1, and one Mr. mahesh B Jadhav signed the agreement as witnesses. It is the case of the complainant that in terms of the said agreement, the accused company was under an obligation to disburse payments to the complaint in two ways from the amount received annual from the corporation. It is alleged that as per Table-B reflected in the agreement, the accused company had agreed to pay the consideration amount in Table-B to the complainant under any circumstances even if the complainant fails to perform his obligations. Even the governmental taxes arising out of the consideration payable to the complainant were to be borne by the accused company. It is the case of the complainant, accordingly accused company as per the said agreement had agreed to pay Rs.5,43,20,000/- to the complainant in the span of 10 years. It is also the case of the complainant that accordingly the complainant secured the tender in favour of the accused company in which lot of expenses were incurred by the complainant. It is alleged that during the said period, the complainant was induced to incur primary expenses on behalf of the accused company and, the accused company in turn issued 12-15 vouchers. According to the complainant approximately Rs.20 Lakhs worth vouchers were issued. It is further alleged that since, such large amount was invested by the complainant, his financial condition was deteriorated. The complainant thereafter repeatedly demanded money from the accused company. However, he assured on behalf of the accused company that the complainant would get his share as per agreed percentage as soon as the bills of accused company were cleared by the corporation. Thereafter the accused company persuaded the complainant that if he wants to have his reimbursement and share at the earliest, the complainant must have to take steps to ensure the payment of money from the corporation. The complainant thereafter incurred further expenses to process the payment of tender amount from the corporation, and the accused company started receiving the bill of payments periodically from the corporation. It is alleged that despite receiving the payments from the corporation, since last 4 years the accused company avoided the payment of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that when the complainant visited Delhi and met the officers of the accused company, the complainant got to understand the accused company has been divided into three parts, first HCL Infosystems Ltd, HCL Infotech Ltd and HCL Services Ltd, and the complainant was told that his case is related to HCL Infotech and he was asked to enquire with the said company. It is alleged that accordingly the complainant visited the said department and lodged his protest. The complainant therefore was constrained to file the complaint against the accused persons.