Ms.Kapila Saigal D/ O Sri.Narendra Saigal Aged About 39 Years, Vs. State of Karriataka by Cubbon Park Police Station, Smt.Thirta Kumaraswamy W/O Sri.M.C. Kumaraswamy, Aged About 52 Years, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[subhash b. adi,j.]this crlp. is filed under section 482 cr.p.c praying to quash the fir and complaint annexure-a & b respectiveiy in cr.no.160/10filed by r-1. this crlp. coming on for admission this day, the court made the following:-order1.petitioner has called in question the proceedings in fir in cr.no.160/10 registered by cubbon park police, bangalore, offences punishable under sections 420, 403, 406 & 477-a of ipc.2. respondent no,2 is a complainant he filed a private complaint before the 4th addlc.m.m,, bangalore, in pcr no ,2586$/10 interalia alleging that she had entrusted the running concern in the name and style as "cohiba club" to the petitioner and on account of her emergency work, she had left india to u.s.a. on her return from usa, she found that, the accused had not paid rent to the landlord and cheques given for rs.32 lakhs were dishonoured and excise license was cancelled and she was put to loss. she further alleged that, the name of the business concern was changed into new heera panna", a proprietary concern and the accused had taken all the assets of the said establishment to new restaurant at koramangala and where he is running another establishment in the name and style chandini chowk".3,learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner has entered into partnership agreement with the respondent no .2 and as per the terms of the said agreement she had to transfer excise license, but the same was not done and the premises in which "cohiba club" was running is now being used for the purpose of running "heera panna restaurant and regarding partnership firm, there is arbitration clause, complainant without resorting to the arbitration, has sled a sake complaint4.matter is under investigation. petitioner may furnish such materials as he deems necessary to the i.o., who shall take into consideration such documents and on completion of the investigation, he may file appropriate report, depending upon the nature of material and the allegation. however, there is no reason to remove the material from the premises of the petitioner unless the i.o., is satisfied with the materials produced by the parties and the allegation constitutuing the offence,5. with these observations, petition is disposed of,

Judgment:
ORDER

1.Petitioner has called in question the proceedings in FIR in Cr.No.160/10 registered by Cubbon Park police, Bangalore, offences punishable under Sections 420, 403, 406 & 477-A of IPC.

2. Respondent No,2 is a complainant he filed a private complaint before the 4th AddLC.M.M,, Bangalore, in PCR No ,2586$/10 interalia alleging that she had entrusted the running concern in the name and style as "Cohiba Club" to the petitioner and on account of her emergency work, she had left India to U.S.A. On her return from USA, she found that, the accused had not paid rent to the landlord and cheques given for Rs.32 lakhs were dishonoured and Excise license was cancelled and she was put to loss. She further alleged that, the name of the business concern was changed into New Heera Panna", a Proprietary concern and the accused had taken all the assets of the said establishment to new restaurant at Koramangala and where he is running another establishment in the name and style Chandini Chowk".

3,Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner has entered into partnership agreement with the respondent No .2 and as per the terms of the said agreement she had to transfer excise license, but the same was not done and the premises in which "Cohiba Club" was running is now being used for the purpose of running "Heera Panna Restaurant and regarding partnership firm, there is arbitration clause, complainant without resorting to the arbitration, has Sled a Sake complaint

4.Matter is under investigation. Petitioner may furnish such materials as he deems necessary to the I.O., who shall take into consideration such documents and on completion of the investigation, he may file appropriate report, depending upon the nature of material and the allegation. However, there is no reason to remove the material from the premises of the petitioner unless the I.O., is satisfied with the materials produced by the parties and the allegation constitutuing the offence,

5. With these observations, petition is disposed of,