Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants no.1 and 2 are partner of M/s i-Valuebridge Software & Solutions LLP (a limited liability partnership firm) duly registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act having its registered office at 408 to 413, Signer Corner, Balewadiphata, Baner Road, Pune and is engaged in business of software development and manufacture; that between son of complainant, opposite party no. 2, namely, Aditya Watal and applicants no.1 and 2, with an understanding, entered into an agreement, whereby both the parties agreed to develop together a software by the name of Guzool Product, in which the applicants were to invest money amounting Rs. Two Crors for development of the software by engaging Programmers, System Analyst and Consultants and was to provide infrastructure for development of software; that the son of opposite party no.2 agreed that the applicants will make the product robust and commercially viable; that the software, after being completed, was ready for uploading on the server and both, the applicants and son of complainant had assisted for uploading the software on the server named as Codero; that thereafter son of complainant started taking steps for forming separate legal entity in the name of style of Atomic Labs Private Limited with an ulterior motive to launch the Guzool product commercially without the applicants' permission or without compensating the applicants for the service rendered for the development of the said product; that the image on record would go to show that the son of opposite party no.2 never had any intention to enter into an agreement with the applicants; that on 4th June, 2011 it came to the knowledge of the applicants that access to the Codero survey of the applicants was removed and the password of the project including data on future product released in favour of one of the employee of the applicants, was also changed giving ownership to the son of complainant, without permission of the applicants; that with a view to restore access and to reset the password, same was reset/restored on 10thJune, 2011 by the applicants and backup of all its data on the server including the Guzool Software, Projects, Customer Data and applicants' own data was taken; that the applicants also sent legal notice to the son of complainant on 20th June, 2011 and when said notice was unresponded, the applicants filed suit being R.C.S. No. 1321 of 2011, which is stated to be pending at Pune; that during the pendency of the said suit, the complainant and his son, as a counter blast, filed suit no. 43 of 2011 at civil court, Allahabad, in which ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of son of complainant ; that thereafter the opposite party no.2 lodged first information report on 7.9.2011 in case crime no. 385 of 2011 under Section 379, 406, 420, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 65/66 of I.T. Act, 2000, in which charge-sheet has been filed, which is impugned in the present application; that the applicants had filed criminal misc. writ petition no. 19923 of 2011, in which arrest of the applicants was stayed till submission of charge-sheet , copy of which has been filed as annexure-8 to the affidavit.

Learned counsel for the private opposite party has drawn attention of this Court to annexure-14 to the affidavit , which is copy of objection filed by the private opposite party and has referred to internal page 150 of the present 482, Cr.P.C. application, which is the interim working agreement dated 14.5.2011 between I-Value Bridge and Atomic Labs, which shows complicity of the applicants in commission of alleged offence.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has further argued that the second Investigating Officer in his second Investigation has failed to consider the order of the District Judge, Allahabad dated 2.4.2012 in case no. 43 of 2011 wherein it is contended that the said Court held that the copyright belongs to Atomic Labs Private Limited and M/s i-Valuebridge Software & Solutions LLP has no right to use the same, which order of the learned District Judge was also upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgement and order dated 9.7.2012 and which has attained finality.

It is again contended on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that civil misc. writ petition no. 19923 of 2011 filed by Sanjay Sharma, wherein a Division Bench of this Court granted relief to Sri Sharma till filing of the charge sheet, vide order dated 21.10.2001. Still again, it is argued that another Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.8.2012 rejected the matter of Sri Sanjay Sharma partner of M/s i-Valuebridge Software & Solutions LLP for quashing of the FIR. Thereafter, 482, Cr.P.C. Application no. 15135 of 2013 filed by Sri Sanjay Sharma, partner of M/s i-Valuebridge Software & Solutions LLP was disposed of whereby quashing of charge sheet was refused. It is contended that in all the aforesaid matters the courts at Allahabad were fully aware about pendency of civil as well as criminal cases between the parties at Pune also and thus stand taken by second IO that new facts have emerged regarding pendecny of civil and criminal cases pending at Pune is a wrong averment.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that as the interim agreement dated 14.5.2011 between M/s i-Valuebridge Software & Solutions LLP and Atomic Labs Private Limited is on record along with other documents and there are allegations for the offence being committed under Section 66-C, 66-D of Information Technology Act and Section 85 of Information Technology Act 2008 regarding hacking of website concerned, which are questions of fact and can be well considered by the Trial Judge after appreciation of such facts. It cannot be said at this stage that courts at Allahabad do not have jurisdiction as has been observed by the court in its order impugned that it is a continuing offence and there is no denial of interim agreement, referred to above. Further more, the submissions as referred to above also indicate that the applicants are filing repeated petitions/applications before this Court as well as before the court below with the intention to defer the matter even without complying with the orders passed by the Court.