IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.02.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.12418 of 2007 and M.P.No. 1 of 2007 Krishan Kishor Soni .. Petitioner. Versus State rep. by Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 021. .. Respondent. Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the records relating to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.1945 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Selvaraj For Respondent : Mr.A.Saravanan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R The petitioner, who is facing prosecution for alleged offences under Sections 418 and 406 IPC in C.C.No.1945 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, seeks to quash the proceedings in such case. 2. M/s.Blue Dart Aviation Private Limited have preferred a complaint against the petitioner stating that the Company being engaged in Cargo Transportation, required a commander for their Aircraft a B-737-200. The petitioner was recruited to the said post and was offered the job of a Training Commander, during September 2003. The company provided a specialised training to the petitioner on the undertaking that he would serve the company for a period of three years. The petitioner executed an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. It also is informed that the petitioner has assured that he would not disclose or divulge to any body in any manner, any of the technical know how, processes & information imparted to him https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ during the course of the training, including information relating to the operations and transactions of the company. The company had provided training to the petitioner at CONAIR, Johannesburg – South Africa and incurred an expenditure of an amount of Rs.6,92,000/-. As a benefit of the training which has been imparted at a heavy cost, the petitioner was certified to be a qualified commander. After completion of training, the petitioner became unresponsive and started making certain demands of the company, which showed some elasticity in dealing with him. The petitioner informed the company about his intention of resigning from the company. The complainant company, shocked by his attitude, made enquiries. The company was given to understand that the petitioner had joined M/s.Kingfisher Airlines, a new airlines service in India carrying on similar business as that of the complainant company, that he had utilized the technical know how imparted to him by the complainant company and that he had also divulged some confidential informations to the other company. 3. The respondent police had registered the complaint in Crime No.76 of 2005 under Sections 418 and 406 IPC. After the completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed, alleging offence under Sections 418 and 406 IPC. The charge sheet states that the petitioner had executed an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- agreeing to a condition to serve in the organisation for a period of three years. After taking the training, the petitioner not joined in the company and he has joined another company. Thus, the charge sheet proceeds, the accused had with a dishonest intention induced the complainant company to recruit him for the training as a Commander by executing a bond and after obtaining training on the expenditure of a sum of Rs.6,92,000/- incurred by the organisation viz. M/s.Blue Dart Aviation Ltd. The conduct of the petitioner would attract the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust and cheating by way of giving false representation. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 5. On the facts of this case, the allegation that the petitioner with dishonest intention had induced the company to recruit him for training, as result of which the company incurred expenses and lost a sum of Rs.6,92,000/- is not well founded. It is to be stated that the facts do not reflect any deception at inception on the part of the petitioner. In other words, there is nothing to show that the petitioner intended to cheat the defacto complainant at the time when he was recruited by the company and executed a bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Even, otherwise, it is apparent that the dispute between the petitioner and Defacto Complainant company is civil in nature arising out of breach of contract. The remedy for redressal against breach of contract is before a Civil Court. The conduct of the petitioner may well be unethical but the same cannot be termed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ illegal. Hence, the complaint cannot stand and accordingly proceedings in C.C.No.1945 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur shall stand quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ogy To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur. 2. -DO- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chenglepattu 3. The Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 021. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras + 1 cc to Mr.V.Selvaraj, Advocate, Sr 12272 Crl.O.P.No.12418 of 2007 RV (CO) RH (9.3.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/