Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

03. After invention of the paddy analyzer machine, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have applied for patent, in the name and style as "Amvicube P.A. 2.0"

jointly.

04. It is further submitted that during 2016 and 2018, the respondent No.2 has sold about 25 machines for the price of rupees five lakhs each. The amount which the respondent No.2 has sold has not been shared among the petitioners No.1 and 2. The petitioner No.2 on coming to know that the respondent No.2 trying to dominate the business, without following the agreement entered into between them, written a letter to the banker where the company account was opened and being maintained, seeking for cancellation of the authorization given to the respondent No.2 to operate the bank account. As a counter blast, the respondent No.2 filed a criminal case against the petitioners before the jurisdictional police. The police have registered the FIR in Crime No.5/2018 stating that the petitioner No.1 had received a sum of Rs.1,42,500/- from the respondent No.2 on 07.03.2018 promising that he would develop a software for P.A. Analyzer and also share the source code. As such, the petitioners No.1 and 2 have colluded and cheated the respondent No.2. The police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and summons was issued to the petitioners. Hence, this petition.

08. It is further submitted that the petitioner No.2 filed a arbitration proceedings against the respondent No.2 and the learned Arbitrator allowed the arbitration proceedings and directed the respondent No.2 to share the profit and also to produce books of accounts. In the said arbitration proceedings, the respondent No.2 made a counter claim to provide software source code of the P.A. analyzer. The same has been denied.

09. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 being aggrieved by the award of the arbitration, preferred an appeal before the Civil Court for adjudication. In the meantime, filed one more additional suit, against the petitioner No.1 seeking to provide software source code of the machine which the petitioner No.1 has invented. Once, the matter is seized before the Civil Court and the relief sought for by the respondent No.2 has been denied by the Arbitrator, the registration of the criminal case with an ulterior motive to pressurize the petitioners which is not permissible and the criminal case, has to be quashed.

restraining him from being sold the Amvicube product. The same is also pending for consideration. In the meantime, the respondent No.2 filed one more suit in O.S.No.9386/2019 against the petitioner No.1 seeking the relief to provide software source code of Amvicube P.A.2.0. and for a direction to pay him 40% of all expenses incurred by him on the Firm Amvicube. The same is also pending for consideration. Having regard to the rival contention of the parties and also pendency of civil proceedings between the petitioners and the respondent No.2, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjeet Bhatra vs. Uttarkhand and others reported in (2013) "12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or

15. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no doubt in the present case there are number of civil litigations pending between the petitioners and the respondent No.2. In fact, the petitioner No.2 had initiated arbitration proceedings against the respondent No.2, wherein the respondent No.2 made a counter claim and sought for providing software source code "Amvicube P.A. 2.0", the said counter claim has been denied by the arbitrator. Such being the fact, filing the criminal case on the said fact and on the same ground, considered as abuse of process of law. Hence, interference by this Court by invoking inherent jurisdiction to deter the abuse of process of law is essential.