IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No. 1264 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 A. Venkataramani .. Petitioner Versus State by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai. .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to to call for the entire records in C.C.No.6065 of 2006 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s. K. Sukumaran For Respondent : Mr. R. Muniappa raj Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition No.1264 of 2007 to call for the entire records in C.C.No.6065 of 2006 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and quash the same. 2. It is alleged by the respondent/complainant in his complaint that he is running a software business. He is a resident of United States of America since 14 years and a Non-residential Indian (NRI) with nativity at Hyderabad. He runs the firm Radiant System Inc. at United States of America. On his stay at Chennai during January 1998, the accused claiming himself as a director of Kaashyap Institute of Information Technology Pvt. Ltd approached the complainant for setting up technical institute in computer training and requested him to extend necessary technical assistance and to furnish requisite know-how etc. Pursuant to this, an agreement was entered into between the complainant and accused at Chennai. Pursuant to this, a company in the name of M/s. Kaashyap Radiant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Systems Ltd., (KRSL) was floated having registered office at R.A.Puram, Chennai-28. Subsequent to this the said KRSL Company went public issue and as per the prospectus of the said company, the complainant was allotted 3,72,700 shares, each share at face value of Rs.10/- having a lock in period of 3 years from the date of allotment. After this, when the shares were sent for dematerialisation through M/s. Stock holding Corporation of India Ltd., it was rejected by R & T agents of KRSL namely Trident Investment and Portfolio Services Pvt. Ltd. It was stated that the shares were found to be transferred and dematerialised by the accused fraudulently by forging the complainant's signature and manipulating the records. When the complainant questioned the accused about this, he had promised that he would make good the loss of a sum of Rs.37,27,000/-. But the complainant had not been paid this amount so far. Hence, the complaint. 3. Challenging this complaint, the petitioner has filed the above original petition. The petitioner's counsel contended that the entire records produced by the respondent do not prima facie show any of the ingredients of the offences so as to implicate the petitioner in the said complaint. Further, it is alleged that there are no materials to show that the petitioner has forged the signature of the defacto complainant so as to transfer the said shares. Further, there are no materials to show that the petitioner has dishonestly and fraudulently made the false documents within the meaning of Section 464 IPC, so the offence of forgery cannot be said to be made out. Further, just because the share transfer form is false and a false claim was made on a false transfer form, it does not lead to an inference that the petitioner is liable for forgery. 4. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the offence of forgery is not made out, the other consequential offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 r/w. 468 IPC insofar as the petitioner on the available materials are not made out; that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 409 and 420 are very much lacking in the entire materials. Further, the learned counsel has contended that there is no whisper in the charge sheet filed by the respondent that the petitioner committed fraud. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are issues in dispute between the petitioner, the defacto complainant and other third parties. The petitioner's counsel further submitted that the petitioner has discharged the defacto complainant in full; that there is no amount due from the petitioner to the defacto complainant; that pursuant to the said agreement the parties have agreed to withdraw all the pending cases, both civil and criminal, and by signing appropriate forms, documents or affidavits and memorandums and also by appearance through their counsel before the appropriate forum endorsing such withdrawal or compounding as the case might require; that the petitioner, acting upon such agreement, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ withdrawn cases, both civil and criminal, filed by the petitioner against the defacto complainant. 5. In support of the said agreement and the decision to withdraw all cases, both civil and criminal, the petitioner has filed an Additional Typed Set of Papers giving the following particulars:- (1) Copy of Agreement between accused and defacto complainant, dated 08.07.2008. (2) Memo filed by the plaintiff in C.S.No.1088 of 2007, dated 11.07.2008. (3) Memo filed by the plaintiff in C.S.No.1097 of 2007, dated 11.07.2008. (4) Memo filed by the plaintiff in C.S.No.1139 of 2007, dated 11.07.2008. (5) Petition filed by the defacto complainant, dated 11.07.2008. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant supporting his case has mentioned ten witnesses. This Court is of the view that if the matter is settled between the parties, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial court for his remedy, by way of producing the full and final settlement deed. But this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings in C. C. No. 6065 of 2006 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No.1264 of 2007 is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed as not necessary. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mra To 1. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. -do- Through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 1 cc To Mr.K.Sukumaran, Advocate, SR.32030. Crl.O.P.No. 1264 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 RS(CO) RVL 29.07.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/