Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The second respondent lodged FIR on behalf of company namely Razorpay Software Private Limited which is engaged in the business of payment gateway aggregation, developing and implementing payment solutions, facilitating the initiation and receipt of electronic payments, including but not limited to payments effected through credit cards, debit cards, net banking, prepaid instruments and payment methods offered by and routed through the infrastructure established by NPCI. It lodged complaint against 12 entities of merchants the petitioners are a few of them. It is alleged that the petitioners as also some other merchants represented to the company that they were running business in specified categories as mentioned in the FIR and that they defrauded the company by using computer resource by deviating the business from the original category registered by them with it and started routing their transactions to collect payments from a different business called 'Power Bank' which is an app listed in the Google Play Store. The company came to know that certain individuals invested money in 'Power Bank' to earn certain percentage of daily and weekly interest. But the petitioners, after accepting the investment neither paid the interest nor returned the principal amount. Thus the petitioners cheated the company and Razorpay and the customers who invested money.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken a preliminary objection to the locus of second respondent to lodge an FIR on the ground that the second respondent was a practicing advocate and cannot represent a private company. His submissions were that the petitioners and others have filed a suit O.S.3017/2021 in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, against the company Razorpay Limited and ICICI Bank for declaratory relief and therefore the FIR being subsequent to suit was as a result of a conspiracy to fix the petitioners in a false case. He submitted that the petitioners are carrying on business on on-line platform and their clients or customers have been provided with a legitimate platform and services to play rummy games including skilled games both in cash and non-cash avenues. The performers' money is safely secured and transacted via bank accounts and other approved digitally transfer modes. There is no direct or specific allegation against the petitioners. None of the customers has lodged a complaint and the quantum of amount lost by the customers is also not mentioned. The Razorpay gateway payment company is transferring and blocking transactions without authority of law by breaching the terms which is causing extreme heavy loss to the petitioners business and its customer. The loss has been estimated to an extent of 1.5 crores. The second respondent has suppressed material facts and played fraud. Therefore it is his argument that the contents of FIR do not indicate any offence being committed. Investigation is nothing but abuse of process of law and court and hence the petitions are to be allowed. In the written arguments the learned counsel has referred to certain subsequent events which are not necessary for disposal of these petitions.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 is no longer an advocate. He started working in a company by stopping the practice and therefore the FIR lodged by him cannot be said to be bad as he cannot represent the company. He further submitted that FIR clearly discloses the manner in which the petitioners deviated the money and cheated Razorpay. The grounds that the petitioners have taken cannot be considered for quashing the FIR. Investigation is absolutely necessary and therefore the writ petitions are to be dismissed.

6. The State Public Prosecutor also submitted that considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioners, investigation is necessary. Section 482 Cr.P.C is not meant for stalling the investigation and therefore the petitions are to be dismissed.

7. Having heard the arguments with regard to the locus standi of the second respondent to lodge an FIR, it is to be stated that the second respondent has stated in his objection statement that because of covid pandemic situation, most of the offices, including the office of Karnataka Bar Council were not working. He sent the intimation letter on 29.6.2021, but the letter of suspension of Bar licence was submitted much prior to receipt of notice in the writ petitions. He has stated that there was no deliberate intention to cause delay in giving intimation to Bar Council. Thus he has some explanation. Anyway this issue cannot be considered so seriously, if at all there is any violation of code of conduct, the Bar Council will take action. But the fact remains that the second respondent is the authorized representative of the company 'Razorpay'.