Final Order 1

Order Details: Order of Dismissal
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
66TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C.C. No. : 405/SW/2018
ORDER BELOW (EXH.1 )
Read the complaintcumaffidavit , documents filed
alongwith it on record. Heard Ld. counsel for complainant, at
length. Ld. counsel for complainant has relied upon the decision
of Honourable Supreme Court Lalita Kumari V/s. Government of
U. P. LEX (SC) 2008 7 148. I have gone through decision cited
by Ld. counsel for complainant.
2. It appears that, complainant has made this complaint
for issuance of directions to the concern police station for
investigation U/Sec. 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code. He
stated that, he is doing business in the name and style as SRT
Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Accused No. 1 is limited company and
engaged in the same business, vide Memorundum of
Understanding dtd.14/09/2011, accused No. 1 handed over the
said business to him and discontinued itself from the doing said
business vide above said MOU. He further stated that, accused
No.2 and 3 were employee in his company, as Dy. General
Manager Production and Sales Manager (South Zone)
respectively. Both have not resigned till date, have opened their
own business since 20/08/2014 in the name and style as M/s.
Universal Quality Engineering Company, having office at 401,
Nanda Deep, Brahman Wadi, M. P. Marg, Pipe Road, Kurla (W),
Mumbai 400 070 and ABN Enterprises having address 109,
-- 1 of 4 --
~2~
Thamas Street, Garpati Nagar, Near Raju Gandhi School, Proor
Chennai – 600006.
3. He further stated that, he came to know in the month
of July 2015, that accused No.2 and 3 have started their
business with his customers from Universal Quality Engineering
Company and ABN Enterprises, stating that they have taken over
his consent. He immediately contacted them and asked about it,
but they have not given any satisfactory reason for doing so and
nor returned company, material stock worth `.One Hundred and
Twenty Five crores and took away all bills, chalane's and
voucher and party order's copies and parties phone numbers,
mail id password (marketing srt@yahoo.com). Therefore, he
lodged complaint on 20/11/2015, which was registered under
C. R. No.147/2016 on 12/03/2016, P.U.S.420, 465, 467, 478,
471, 474 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and other charges of
Copy Right Act and Information Technology Act against the
accused No. 2 and 3.
4. Further he stated that, during investigation accused
No.2 and 3 stated that they were provided authority of business
by accused No.1 and submitted an original letter dtd.
29/08/2014. Accused No.2 under the pressure of the police,
sent him password and after inquiry he came to know there is
big manipulation and misused of the said email id, which ws
-- 2 of 4 --
C.C. No. : 405/SW/2018 ~3~
used by accused No.2 and 3. further during inquiry he came to
know that, accused No.1 has also issued the business authority
letter to the accused No.2 and 3 authorizing them to do the
same business for which the accused No.1 had already given
authority to him vide MOU dtd.14/09/2011, wherein accused
No.1 is not entitled to issue the business authority letter to
accused No. 2 and 3 during the enforceability of the authority
given to him by accused No.1. Despite the knowledge of letter
dtd.29/08/2014 submitted by accused No. 2 and 3 in police
station.
5. Further he stated that accused No.1 did not take any
action against accused No.2 and 3 regarding the authority given
to them. It reveals during personal inquiry to him, the business
handed over by the accused No.1 to him and allegedly also to
accused No. 2 and 3 does not belong to accused No. 1 and the
real owner of the business is B & S Messey Manchester and the
accused No. 1 itself has committed an offence of forgery and
cheating and also violated the provision of Information
Technology Act and Copy Right Act. He further stated that,
after obtaining the authority to commence the business he
invested huge amount of `.11,64,30,000/ for the development
of infrastructure etc. for conducting the said business. He also
paid Demand Draft and cheque as well as cash amount of
`.2,00,000/ to the accused No.1, while obtaining drawing
-- 3 of 4 --
~4~
design and patent from the accused No.1. Therefore, he lodged
written complaint on 27/06/2018 with Sakinaka police station,
but the police have not taken cognizance of it, hence, the
present complaint.
6. If minutely gone through contents of present
complaint, contents of F.I.R. of C. R. No.147/2016, which was
lodged by the present complainant, on dtd. 12/03/2016, it
appears that, the allegations made by the complainant in the
present case and in C. R. No.147/2016 found to be one and the
same. Further, it appears that, investigation of C. R. No.
147/2016 is still going on. In spite of that, the complainant has
filed this complaint and made the same allegations. Therefore,
for the same facts and circumstances, which were alleged
previously in the year 2015, again for the same, investigaion
cannot be ordered, as same is going on. Considering all these
facts of above discussion, the prayer cannot be considered, same
is required to be rejected. Hence, it is rejected and complaint is
hereby dismissed.
Mumbai.
Dated : 04/12/2018.
SRD.
Sd/
(R. M. Nerlikar)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 4 --