Dismissed

M/S Jenta Tech Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2019CRLP/35948/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash an FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust. It held that investigation is necessary to ascertain dishonest intention and the company's bona fides. A protection against coercive action was granted pending findings.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed, investigation directed to continue; coercive action restrained absent credible evidence; interim order discharged.

M/S Jenta Tech Pvt. Ltd. and 4… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 35948 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Jenta Tech Pvt. Ltd. And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anita Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

At the outset, Ms Anita Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has stated that the name of the accused company is M/s Xanta Tech Pvt. Ltd. but the petitioner has been wrongly described in the writ petition as M/s Jenta Tech Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the typographical error appeared to be on account of phonetical similarity in the words and, therefore, the petitioners may be permitted to correct the same so as to describe the petitioner no. 1 correctly.

¶7

Considering that the above error may have occurred on account of phonetical similarity in the names, we deem it appropriate to observe that the writ petition shall be treated on behalf of M/s Xanta Tech Pvt. Ltd., which is an accused, though the same may not have been correctly spelt.

¶8

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned AGA for the State respondents; and Ms Anita Singh for the respondent nos. 3 & 4.

¶9

Instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 21.11.2018, registered as Case Crime No. 1671 of 2018 at P.S. Phase III, District Gautam Budh Nagar, under Sections 420, 406 IPC.

¶10

The allegation in the FIR is that the complainant/informant Dr. Bertrand de Faucauld, as Director of M/s Contrib City France, which is a company registered in France, was inspired by the make in India doctrine, promoted by Indian Prime Minister and, therefore, to extend his business in India in IT project for Rural Local Development, his business team met Mr Prabodh Kumar Singh (petitioner no. 2) and Ms Abha Singh (petitioner no. 3) who described themselves as Director of M/s Xanta Tech Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner no. 1). It is alleged that Prabodh Kumar Singh introduced Mr Ankit Kumar (petitioner no. 4) as contact person for further negotiations/communications. It is alleged that Mr Ankit Kumar convinced the complainant (Dr Bertrand de

¶11

Faucauld) for developing Contribcity India Website project, mobile app, search engine optimization (SEO) and social media optimization (SMO) services by disclosing it to the complainant that M/s Xanta Tech Pvt. Ltd. is a registered company. It is stated that on the aforesaid assurances and subsequent discussions with the Director of M/s Xanta Tech Pvt. Ltd. a contract was signed between the complainant and M/s Xanta Tech Pvt. Ltd. on 28.12.2015, whereunder the petitioner no. 4, acting on behalf of M/s Xanta Tech Pvt. Ltd., agreed to complete the project within four months from the date of agreement at a cost of Rs. 4,86,480/- and promised to handover the project source code to the complainant. It is alleged that both parties had agreed for non disclosure of the business concept as a mandatory condition for the contract. It is further alleged that Ankit Kumar (petitioner no. 4) introduced the complainant to one Sonu Kumar as his Associate and Project Manager and stated that they would be working on Contribcity Project and develop the desired Website, mobile app, etc. It is alleged that the work was not completed as per agreement and demand of extra money than what was agreed was made. It is alleged that when the complainant denied to pay excess amount, accused started threatening and blackmailing the complainant by threatening that they shall not complete the work and would not handover the source code. It is stated that the accused by their conduct have not only violated the terms and conditions of the agreement but by not providing the source code and threatening to leak-out the source code and confidentiality of the project have committed various offences.

¶12

Instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR on the ground that the allegations, as they stand, disclose a contractual dispute between the parties and, from the allegations, it does not appear that there had been dishonest intention on the part of the accused from the very beginning so as to disclose commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and, therefore no offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is made out. It has, thus, been prayed that the FIR is liable to be quashed as only a civil cause of action is disclosed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that the matter would have to be investigated to ascertain whether the accused harboured a dishonest intention from the very beginning; as also whether the accused company ever existed or t hat they fraudulently represented to the complainant about their existence as well as competence to undertake such a project, as alleged.

¶14

Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that, at this stage, it cannot be said that the FIR does not make

¶15

out a prima facie case for investigation of the matter in as much as it would have to be ascertained whether there has been dishonest intention of the accused from the very beginning i.e. since the time of entering into agreement or there had been a mere breach of agreement. For ascertaining the above aspects, the existence of the company, and its bona fides as well as capacity to undertake such a project would have to be ascertained on the basis of the material collected during course of investigation and, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations made do not even call for investigation or that no offence at all is disclosed which may warrant quashing of the FIR at its incipient stage.

¶16

In view of above, while we refuse to quash the FIR dated 21.11.2018, registered as Case Crime No. 1671 of 2018, at P.S. Phase III, District Gautam Budh Nagar, under Sections 420, 406 IPC and provide that the investigation of the above noted case shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion, however, we deem it appropriate to also provide that before taking any coercive action against the petitioners in the above case, the police/investigating agency shall consider whether there exist credible evidence/information against the petitioners in respect of commission of any offence. The above protection, in no case, shall be available on submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶17

With aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed off. Subject to above, the interim order, granted earlier, stands discharged.

¶18

Let a copy of this order be supplied to learned AGA for communication.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.2.2019 RavindraKSingh

M/S Jenta Tech Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jenta Tech Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kallu Hashmi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sagar Gurjar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahavir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kamini @ Kammo an D Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Akbar Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nisha Naaz Alias Anuradha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others